Hubbard on “power”

From a technical bulleting dated 10 August 1982 titled, “OT maxims”, we find:

THE POWER (defined as light-year kilo-tons per microsecond) OF A THETAN IS MEASURED BY NOTHING ELSE THAN THE DISTANCE (defined as spherical spatial length) AROUND HIM IN HIS ENVIRONMENT THAT HE CAN CONTROL.

Now this is one of those quotes that people in the church read, clear every word of and even make a demonstration using colored clay figures, and then end up not understanding what it means. I know I did.

So I have a challenge for you. Try making sense of the above quote and let me know what you end up with.

392 thoughts on “Hubbard on “power”

  1. I don’t know whether this is LRH. At that time he -according to the COS- was away researching OT stuff (because he hadn’t made any other OT research before and during his stay in the COS). Specially that ‘defined as light-year kilo-tons per microsecond’, looks like somebody was trying to imitate him.

    Also “controlling others is an overt” -PDC

  2. THE POWER OF A THETAN IS MEASURED BY NOTHING ELSE THAN THE space AROUND HIM IN HIS ENVIRONMENT THAT HE CAN CONTROL.
    This may be a cop-out but that’s all I get out of it. Controlling his own environment of that which he can and forgetting the scientific words.

  3. I consider that the view of a person in such deep fear that he feels unsafe around anyone he feels he cannot control. I specialize in delivering power processing, and I rely on the information from John Mcmasters, who in my opinion understood it better than anyone else, and was the prime developer. I find much of Hubbard’s data on the subject false and misleading. Hubbard defined power as “the ability to hold a position in space”, and that it is “determined by speed of particle flow alone.” I explain to my PC’s that I consider this to be incorrect, and that my definition of true power is the ability to experience things, and not the compulsion to resist or overwhelm. Works for me! 🙂

    1. “the ability to experience things, and not the compulsion to resist or overwhelm”…yeah, that’s beautiful. 🙂

  4. I define power as:

    1. it is an out flow of theta energy creating a sphere of influence,

    2. it is increased by speed and volume of flow.

    3. it is effected by the relative ability to cause an effect in that sphere of influence.

    4. it is effected by the relative ability to maintain or sustain and adjust the effect.

    5. It is the relative ability to get things done

    6. It is the relative ability to start, change and stop.

    Example: Winston Churchill is one person who comes to mind as having that stuff what I call “power”.

    I would say that Hubbard also had power.

    There is a right way and a wrong way to do almost everything and anything.

    Dio

    1. There is a right way and a wrong way to do almost everything and anything. Dio

      Chris: Good example of a truth which is relative, conditioned and impermanent.

    2. Dio
      ‘it is an out flow of theta energy…’
      Yes. I was reading your comment above and liked it. Then I put the video of Teal at the bottom of this thread you responded to to start the discussion. As it looks, it is the ‘power’ of the Flow…or whatever we call it.
      Like your above comment. Very much.

  5. I see this as ones space being a space someone can be comfortable in or around to be able to let go of enough garbage to get a few things done. Space around meaning not in someone else’s head, whether in person or not. The space around such a person can be lighter and brighter without forcing.

  6. Just rubbish…one can be born strong, powerful, clever or the opposite, coward and stupid. Cannot imagine how can be measured these particularities. Forget about Hubbard, it’s about human nature, nothing else.

  7. Take a look at the definitions of Responsibility #6 & 7 and see how they relate to the def of Power. I never signed a checksheet until I fully understood it.

  8. It only means how far in the environment can one control…the more space the more control. Just take a look at the Pope…he controls all the Catholic world all over and that measures his power…right or wrong, he does

    1. The pope does not CONTROL …. and he has not the power. He is a person and people BELIEVE in his POST having the Power of God. If the pope would say something the people disagree with totally in their believe then you would see how much he can really control – nothing. That’s not power. It’s just an APPEARANCE of power.

      1. A person that seek to dominate all, who cannot finish a cycle of action and is being hunted by the universe (all of them), isn’t powerful. He is obsessed with power.

  9. It makes no sense because it is engineering claptrap. First mistake is that the definition and the measurement are reversed. Colossal blunder….

    “light-year kilo-tons per microsecond” does make sense in a literal fashion. Power is work per unit time, and work is force times distance. So power is force times distance divided by time. The actual units look like they were chosen because they are big (light-years and kilo-tons) or small (microseconds) . kilo-tons and micro-seconds are sort of in the same scale ball-park, but light-years are in a whole different category of measure scale. And no sane engineer would combine units in that way. Makes one wonder why the author picked it.

    The clues is the “spatial length” nonsense – it seems designed to convey a concept of “awfully terribly hugely big” and create a sense of wonder or a feeling of “Holy smoke Batman! Imagine if I could wield that much oomph!”

    So nothing much to see here, folks, move along. Just more meaningless mumbo-jumbo from someone who had zero clue about the subject.

    1. Splog:”Just more meaningless mumbo-jumbo from someone who had zero clue about the subject.”

      Although the units are in terms of momentum, not power, I believe Ron had a very good idea of the derivative of power. That said, his calculus and physics lacked in a way that I shudder at the thought of a non-physics-educated person trying to fully comprehend 8-80.

      That does not diminish – a bit, however – the phenomenal basic understanding the man had of the structure of the universe.

      What he did understand and did say is that a thetan can create space.

      When you learn how to do that (space = distance) then you will learn how YOU can create energy (energy = PE + KE; KE =1/2 mv^2; v=d/t; d=delta space).

      But, golly gosh darn, sploogy sci whiz,… the units mv^2…goddam!!… are the same as F x d (F=ma=m x v / t = m x d /t /t; F x d = m x d / t / t x d = mv^2)!!

      So if you can change the amount of space you occupy, you can create energy. And unless you are massless (hah!!) you will notice a change in energy as you change the amount of space you occupy. The more rapidly you change the volume of space, the more energy you will experience. Keep that up for a period of time and you will have the units of E / t, or F x d per unit t or Power!! (wahhoo! Power = W / t = F x d / t!!)

      So if you were able to modulate the amount of space you occupy (if you can expand and contract your space, you are modulating it), you will have a d/t (=v) component., which, complemented by your miniscule mass will give you an m x v or momentum component. Being able to change your momentum will give you a Force component and being able to exert that over a distance will show that you can create energy.

      Before you know it, you’ve gone on to the dimensions of power!

      All from the ability to occupy space.

      1. 2ndxmr: “Although the units are in terms of momentum, not power,…”

        Me: Although? Although he got the very basics of physics there completely wrong?

        1. Although I said “Although…” I would hope you’d read to the end of the comment before uttering a dismissive pronunciamento.

      2. A thetan does not have miniscule mass, nor does it have a mass that can be described as tending toward zero. According to Hubbard a thetan has zero mass, it is a static.

        Logically then there is no delta component, so by simple substitution all your equations result in the answer of zero. The only way out of this is to reject the notion that a thetan is a static and to give it some mass. But that is directly counter to one of the basic axioms that all of Scientology is built on. Is that what you are claiming?

        1. Splog: ” According to Hubbard a thetan has zero mass, it is a static.”

          I unfortunately do not have the time or patience of a Marildi to provide you with the hundred, or two, references where Hubbard talks about mass. I really would have thought that you, yourself, would have been aware of Hubbard’s ideas of mass and the thetan. As well, in earlier comments I have made in earlier of isene’s blogs (blogs which I have seen you participate in) I have delineated mechanisms of the mind and thetan that describe how mass could manifest and conform to what we know of quantum mechanics. One of these days I will collate, coalesce and re-process those comments into a single reference for the interested. I really don’t fault anybody for not being interested. You’ve got to have your head into quantum mechanics for it to be an interest item. But without that understanding you won’t be able to get beyond the ideas you now hold.

          1. I see. You are using the informal fallacy of “you are to stupid to understand, so I won’t explain”.

            1. Splog: “I see. You are using the informal fallacy of “you are to stupid to understand, so I won’t explain”.”

              Do you recognize your own conclusion here as a straw man?

            2. In that case, I will address your statements.

              You use Newtonian concepts in an attempt to show space being created. You did this by manipulating the defintions of units of measure, not by tackling the actual theory itself.

              That is an error. Newtonian physics is only valid within a system of constant mass and space. It has no means by which to account for space that is anything other than flat, and it explicitly includes the conservation of momentum, energy and mass. Any system that violates this principal is a) counter to everything we currently understand from science and b) completely inexpressible in terms of Newtonian physics.

              Secondly, you use the term “Quantum Mechanics” but give no hint as to what you mean or how it applies to your position. QM is an exceptionally well-defined branch of science, it is one of the most validated and most thoroughly tested physics we have. It is also grossly misunderstood by the general population, and too often I see it invoked in ways I can only describe as “woowoo magic”

              I don’t pretend to understand QM to any great degree – the maths for the most part is beyond me – but the basics are easily understood by undergraduates. QM applies at the sub-atomic level and nowhere else. QM describes the behaviour of sub-atomic particles, it does not describe the behaviour of the macro universe on the level humans interact with it.

              If you mention QM within the context of demonstrating Hubbard to be correct, I must insist that you do the heavy lifting required of real scientists and demonstrate your logic fully, complete with predictions and methods by which your statements can be validated.

            3. Splog:”In that case, I will address your statements. …”

              A good answer and mine will be a little long, so look for it below on its own thread.

      3. 2x: What he did understand and did say is that a thetan can create space.

        Chris: Create space? In what way? I’d rather say that a “thetan” can become more aware of its vicinity and sense of space and that is all.

        1. Chris: I’d rather say that a “thetan” can become more aware of its vicinity and sense of space and that is all.

          Dee: Like 🙂

      4. 2x: That said, his calculus and physics lacked in a way that I shudder at the thought of a non-physics-educated person trying to fully comprehend 8-80.

        Chris: This kind of pompous rhetoric is an attempt to make the subject esoteric and not in keeping with the spirit of one of Hubbard’s ambiguous claims that knowledge was for the common man. That said, it is not important to know the precise language of mathematics in order to experience the wonders of life.

        1. Chris: “This kind of pompous rhetoric is an attempt to make the subject esoteric and not in keeping with the spirit of one of Hubbard’s ambiguous claims that knowledge was for the common man”

          This coming from the man who majors in metaphors.

          I think you misunderstood what I was saying: that there are errors in 8-80 that if you were to try and word clear them you would have the result Geir put forth in his comment “What is even weirder is how we as scientologists read such a thing and go “uh-hmmmm. Yes! I got that!”, and sign off on the course checksheet”

          1. Ok I see that. One more thing that I see is that we (all) sometimes argue from different different frames of reference and by that I don’t mean the general I have a viewpoint, but from the actual frame of reference of (in this case) QM vs Newtonian vs philosophy of the abstract.

            The thing that I’m looking at is that at the macro we have a frame of reference or many and at the quantum we have more frames of reference and at the level of imagination we have yet more. Hubbard’s and other religionists seem to err in mushing them all together into a theory of everything which I factually do not believe in. This is not said as any kind of degrade to science or to any consistent philosophy of any particular frame of reference. For me, that’s what infinite and irrational mean to me.

            Yes, I am a flogger of metaphors. But then aren’t we all?

            1. Chris: “The thing that I’m looking at is that at the macro we have a frame of reference or many and at the quantum we have more frames of reference and at the level of imagination we have yet more.”

              And I quite agree with the fractal concept you imply here and have formerly flogged. 🙂

              To me, perhaps the most brilliant and insightful concept you have put forth was the concept of the postulate condensing as energy in the physical universe. That was the solution to the whole issue of how memories could act on the individual. The further implication of that was that the awareness unit could be literally of the same form as the quantum probabilistic state, in other words, the awareness unit is like a smart electron. (To use a simile instead of a metaphor.)

              This reasoning, unfortunately ( 🙂 ), does allow for a theory of everything, so now I have to disagree with you again (Chris: Hubbard’s and other religionists seem to err in mushing them all together into a theory of everything which I factually do not believe in.) and go back to maligning your metaphors. Peace, bro’.

            2. We reach for understandings outside the set in which we exist. Pointing to Godel’s incompleteness and Heisenberg’s uncertainty, the scientific evidence I am aware of points to the impossibility of a theory of everything from within the confines of known existence. If there is evidence to the contrary, I have not seen it. But then the math would show that I have seen relatively nothing of everything.

              On a happier note and again pointing to Godel and Heisenberg, this enforced lack of a theory of everything points to the existence of a superset of the set of known existence, which is, or is almost empirical, would you say?

            3. Chris: “… this enforced lack of a theory of everything points to the existence of a superset of the set of known existence, which is, or is almost empirical, would you say?”

              I would highly suspect that both empirical and heuristic methods were used in the creation of the universe.

              And I suspect that both methods can be used by us to gain an understanding of this universe.

              Also, there is no reason that both Gödel’s law and Heisenberg’s uncertainty wouldn’t perfectly fit into a TOE as a TOE must incorporate randomity. Considering the model of the probabilistic state, it was exactly that randomity that likely begot awareness.

            4. IS there randomness? Randomness seems to be incorporated into Pachinko. This is the extent to which I understand randomness. Randomness is the outcome of tremendous quantities which becomes too cumbersome and beyond the ability of humans to compute, therefore beyond our ability to predict. The fact that what used to be random such as bacterial diseases is now understood and more easily controlled is evidence of this.

            5. Chris: “IS there randomness?”

              Are you trying to say that although you can get the idea of infinity that you’re not too sure about randomness?

            6. I am saying that for me neither infinity nor randomness is laid out in conventional orthodox thinking just like it actually is. This is kind of bad for me to throw out like that as it raises the obvious question “oh yeah?!? Then how is it laid out?” Which I cannot say in a blog post or maybe at all. But it has to do with our sense of dimension, of time, of the infinite math of the irrational, and of what I consider to be an inherent clock speed of the universe. So if Valkov or anyone listening wants to call “bullshit” on those statements, well I guess I deserve it for writing it so poorly or maybe it is simply a bad idea which has been forming for me. Regardless, I continue.

            7. Chris: “I am saying that for me neither infinity nor randomness is laid out in conventional orthodox thinking just like it actually is. This is kind of bad for me to throw out like that as it raises the obvious question…”

              I thought you had just stuck your foot in your mouth after a reference to the infinite universe, but on looking for the putative “foot”, I couldn’t find it, so I have to simply say you’re sucking on a TOE. 🙂

            8. hehe Metaphors are all I’ve got! But then mathematics is really simply a more particular metaphor, no? Anyway, your use of simile was messed up…LOL

            9. 2x: the awareness unit is like a smart electron.

              Chris: We’re a long way from discerning the difference between an electron and a smart electron! hahaha But my intuition tells me there is plenty of potential right here and right now within the universe as it is to account for everything without needing to go “outside” for reasons why. So we are closer to discerning types of electrons than we are to discerning what is outside the universe. In other words, mankind is also a long way off from needing to go outside the universe for answers to resolve our curiosities about the universe! One day, maybe, but not yet.

            1. @isene – The bold section is in error and wouldn’t resolve by word clearing.

              The entire principle of alternating currents, as drawn in most books on electricity, is
              in error. This shows a positive terminal and a negative terminal, discharging one against the other, rotationally so as to create an alternating current flow. As part of Scientology, it is originated that the principle is in error by the fact that the negative terminal must have a plus negative, and the positive terminal must have a negative positive to form such an interchange. (from Scn 8-80 Ch. 14)

            2. @isene – To contrast the error noted above, the following section from 8-80 is very accurate and predates anything else I’ve come across alluding to the limitation of light-speed theory.

              “The speed of light is not a constant of energy speed. The shorter the period of emission of energy from a source, which is to say, the shorter the wave length of the energy, the greater is the speed of that energy. As one ranges up the tone scale one comes into the near instantaneousness of thought. And very high on the tone scale one finds thought so close to the static that the static is capable of assigning the thought with the time into the past and into the future without regard to the time factor imposed upon the MEST universe, also evidently by some such static.” (from Scn 8-80, Ch14)

              This is close to a profound understanding of the nature of the universe at the quantum level, and the spiritual level.

            3. I’m sorry I can’t let this go unchallenged:

              “The speed of light is not a constant of energy speed.”

              This statement is in direct conflict with modern physics, especially Special Relativity which demonstrates that a) all frames of reference are valid and b) the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.

              Special Relativity has been extensively validated and Einstein is on very solid ground with it. a) first started with Galileo and b) was earlier observed by Michelson-Morley.

              What is Hubbard trying to claim here? That the speed of light is not a constant? That not all energy propagates at speed c? Somethng else? ‘Constant of energy speed’ also doesn’t make grammatical sense but we’ll let that pass for now. The first is an extraordinary claim and will need serious horsepower to back it up; the second is of course true (not all energy is electromagnetic), but one can’t determine which he means

              “The shorter the period of emission of energy from a source, which is to say, the shorter the wave length of the energy, the greater is the speed of that energy.”

              This is only true for waves propagating through a physical medium, created by an initial force. Such as sound and light waves. The key thing is that they need a physical medium to propagate in and the propagation occurs due to physical displacement of the molecules in the medium. The simple final equation that governs this is wavelength=velocity/frequency.

              This statement most certainly does not hold true for any other kind of wave propagation (especially not electromagnetic). If Hubbard wants to base his reasoning on this statement then one has to ask ‘What medium is the wave propagating through, and what is the initial impetus?’

              “As one ranges up the tone scale one comes into the near instantaneousness of thought.”

              This statement is entirely unproven and no rationale is given for making it.
              Hubbard *may* be referring to a gross observation that higher-toned people tend to think faster than lower-toned people, but that is a very shaky basis for a theory.

              “And very high on the tone scale one finds thought so close to the static…”

              a mere assumption similar to the first. Hubbard is asking me to accept on essentially blind faith that this is so. It’s also circular reasoning (see below)

              “…that the static is capable of assigning the thought with the time into the past and into the future without regard to the time factor imposed upon the MEST universe,”

              I fail to see how something that approaches a static can assign a thought to the past. It just does not follow, there is no basis for this conclusion.

              There is no explanation for why time now ceases to be a factor. He does not say that the thought IS a static, he says the thought is CLOSE TO a static. Not the same thing at all. Even according to Hubbard’s own theory, the thought would have to BE a static for time to cease to be a factor.

              “also evidently by some such static.”

              No, not at all evidently. That would require that some actual evidence be shown, or something prior was mentioned to back it up, or the process was shown to be so, or at least SOMETHING. But there’s nothing. It’s just “evidently”. This looks like a magic conclusion the audience is expected to agree with after being dazzled by the text immediately prior.

              Onto the circular reasoning. He appears to be claiming that the thought is close to the static because the static changes something about the thought. That’s the closest I can get to a meaning out of this paragraph.

              “This is close to a profound understanding of the nature of the universe at the quantum level, and the spiritual level.”

              I have to disagree and must state that Hubbard’s statement shows nothing of the kind. What it does show me is that Hubbard didn’t have a clue what he was on about, mixed and conflated concepts any old way he felt like it, and utterly failed to back up his statements with anything testable or demonstrable.

              He appears to COMPLETELY RELY on the audience simply accepting his word and to run with it. And to back that up, I offer the distinct probability that his audience (readers) would have no idea or inclination how to put it to the test.

              Yet more bullshit them with science. It’s not even simplified science or science toned down for the masses like Wikipedia attempts to do (and mostly succeeds at). It’s just complete crap.

            4. @ splog

              This part of the thread is now too skinny for lengthy discourse. I’ll reply on a new thread.

      5. 2x: That does not diminish – a bit, however – the phenomenal basic understanding the man had of the structure of the universe. What he did understand and did say is that a thetan can create space.

        Chris: I can find ways to agree with you no matter the stance you take on this subject. It seems inconsistent to me to be condescending toward Hubbard for not being educated, then to flip flop to saying he understood the secrets of the universe, then to top it off with the statement that thetans create space. Well I can find a way to agree with even this but I don’t think its in the context that you mean. But for any practical purpose, space is there and we work within it. Being aware or not neither increases nor diminishes the space that is there.

        1. Chris: But for any practical purpose, space is there and we work within it. Being aware or not neither increases nor diminishes the space that is there.

          Dee: Why do you have to make it so simple. 😎

        1. 2X: Before you know it, you’ve gone on to the dimensions of power!

          Chris: I don’t know what you mean by this.

          I should have said the “units” of power. (Work per unit time)

          (Force x distance = work; Work/time = Power. That’s a bit too brief of an overall explanation, but the jist of it is that when an extra measure of time comes in, the “units” change.)

      6. Although the spiritual universe or spiritual plane has unknown rules, or not the same rules as the physical plane, and we can’t understand them using our physical tools (or MEST tools) and less measuring or formulating something provable from that. It will be foolish to persist to do so, and it will lead you to a pack of false analogies.

        I will put it in another way for greater clarity:
        Suppose the spiritual field is the origin of everything (the space, but not primordial time), and we call it that way, but its only a field that’s beyond and implies the physical plane, but not in reverse. Like p->q, the spiritual field implies the physical field as the bottle implies the form of the water inside it. So, the rules we have reached as human civilization can only describe a PART of the physical plane. But that spiritual plane (or field, or whatever) can’t be reached physically because spirituality would be supra-physical. It’s like the super luminous man, or supra-luminic energy, or the takionic field and researches about particles beyond the speed of light.

        So, How one of us (human) would know enough science to induce the inherent cosmic-spiritual laws? Or how would know that laws inherently or by unknown sources, and then tries to explain it scientifically bad?
        I think one should be above science to do that, and the only thing I’ve found that states above everything is EGO.

        1. Petteko “So, How one of us (human) would know enough science to induce the inherent cosmic-spiritual laws?”

          I think the spiritual laws, if we want to call them that, and physical universe laws will merge at the quantum level.

          The key to all lies in the concept of the probabilistic state recognized in quantum mechanics as the superposition of all possible states and locations. That means, basically, that any outcome (condensed state) is possible, but some are more probable.

          The implication of this is that awareness is a possible outcome from the infinite number of possibilities of the probabilistic state.

          Hence we have the possibility for awareness to emerge from the void.

          1. I think that too. But that would mean, as an answer to my question, that a human could know the universe laws by dominating all the quantum physics. Was that the case on Hubbard?
            According to the post (it’s very interesting what you said, thought), I have a question:
            It is possible that you see the sense in that Hubbard’s quote because you are 1. either a genius that understand what Hubbard wanted to say, 2. Interested in quantum physics so you see what you want?

            Even if Hubbard tried to say something cool, then he used the wrong words and confuse normal people. And it must be corrected, or looked critically, on a constructive way.

            Please, don’t feel it like an invalidation. I know a bit of quantum physics and also I know that that field could justify a lot of pseudoscience, all with holes and mystery, playing with the misunderstanding of common people. What you said, I take it like an invitation to another kind of discussion, that I find more related to some concept of macro-decoherence and alternative universes that may sound more like science fiction but it could be possible.
            Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have interesting researches on the quantum levels implying consciousness. If something not as complete or not as consistent as we would want it to be about Scientology concepts and abstractions, could be explained with a strong science or has equivalences with certain discoveries, like neuroscience or quantum physics, then we must get clear and solid concepts, scientifically proven, with clear and accesible explanations, as those that scientologists lack.

            1. Petteko: It is possible that you see the sense in that Hubbard’s quote because…

              I have a strong science background so I always weighed LRH “science” against what I knew and took little at face value. Then there is the stuff he called OT ability. Virtually none of that could be explained scientifically before the advent of quantum mechanics. Not that OT ability is being explained by quantum physicists, but I see many indications that OT ability is explainable with the principles of quantum mechanics. A further indication that there was merit to exploring OT ability is that there has been much anecdotal evidence of paranormal abilities over the ages, and a lot of the anecdotes are consistent in content.

              LRH was incredibly good, as an auditor, at getting people to locate memories that had had an effect on abilities. Typically, when he wrote about his findings he wrote in as simplistic a manner as possible (non-scientific language). I would guess that there were often no words to easily describe some of the states he encountered. How does one, for instance, describe a dimensionless void? How does one describe a time of no time?

              He did what he did. Now it’s time for us to figure out the rest. I have departed from the idea that the CoS has the data and will share it with us as we are ready for it. The CoS doesn’t have the data and is guilty of all manner of things in regards to concealing the data that it does have. Where that goes back to Ron I can only say “Mistake!” and now get on with figuring it out. I hold the idea that we can figure it out, that nothing is completely unknowable. Over the course of the last few years the dialogs, predominantly here on Geir’s blog, have exposed some concepts which may lead to the basic truths we seek. Time will tell if they do or if they require further modification. Unlike the CoS we can take, leave, alter, suggest, quibble, fight, enter, exit, continue, quit, philosophize or dramatize. Perhaps that is our Power.

            2. 2x: Unlike the CoS we can take, leave, alter, suggest, quibble, fight, enter, exit, continue, quit, philosophize or dramatize. Perhaps that is our Power.

              Chris: Agree, it has ever been so. Let’s continue.

          2. 2x: I think the spiritual laws, if we want to call them that, and physical universe laws will merge at the quantum level.

            Chris: That’s the way I see it for now. And we might want to go easy on the word “law.” haha

            1. https://isene.me/2013/08/02/hubbard-on-power/#comment-44722

              To 2ndxmr:

              I agree with your answer, specially about saying that CoS doesn’t have the data (innovative data) and plays games (fairy games) that has its roots on all the mistakes by Hubbard, from the little to the big ones, and has no evidence. Miscavige must be a very smartass to edit all the original mumbo-jumbo on the propagated 2007 editions, if they did that (not only by him, I assume) that would mean that they KNOW that Hubbard has flaws and mistakes, and they not only play the game “I understand Hubbard” but they even have the intellectual and moral authority to correct him to fit their agenda.

              “I would guess that there were often no words to easily describe some of the states he encountered.”

              Different words, same concept. If something is true, no matter how you express it, it will still be true. Sometimes that doesn’t apply the point of view from Hubbard. Sometimes, the words he used were rare or confusing, so we have difficulty to reach the very same divine source he was in contact. For example, not many of us have experimented with altered states of consciousness, or have NDE, or have “paranormal activities” (or all in one single shit), and less with scientific approach or scientific background. And not to say that many of us are not intellectually honest strongly enough, leaving our ego aside to look with more objective attention.
              So, I see the same relativity as for every another author that one would say that has been misunderstood.

              “How does one, for instance, describe a dimensionless void? How does one describe a time of no time?”

              I would say “let the physics be physics and do physics, and if you like the physics, be a physic”. How does a human could describe a single ayahuasca trip? I agree that it’s time for us to figure out everything, by comparing and deepening, and for instance, letting Scientology aside and investing more effort on science instead. If something in Scientology may be true, partially, would be a part of the Hubbard’s viewpoint that was not so lost after all. So, one thing is what he saw, and other thing is what he did indeed. I think that true scientologists are interested in the source, beyond Hubbard, or they must to be.

              I see the field of testing in the parapsychology, so ambigous and general. Does the OT technology makes improvements on this field? Does a methodology covers entirely all the cases and phenomenons? Hubbard had special powers?
              I am not skeptics of all the so-bad-called paranormal phenomenons, but I tend to be skeptics of the scientology improvements and “helps” to clear them.

            2. We are now only a scant 60+ years into the consideration of the mind and being, and the rehabilitation of same, with the knowledge base accumulated by Hubbard. It’s a little early to say “case closed, didn’t work”.

              In addressing the future, I prefer the mindset that followed the Challenger (space shuttle) disaster: find out what went wrong and fix it.

              Not to mention “learn how to do it better.”

              The same holds for all previous paranormal testing: it’s a bit of past knowledge that can be built upon by current knowledge and intuitive thinking.

              The great thing is, the shackles are off and we are free. Free beyond anything we have historical records of being. And free to use some decently advanced real-world technologies to explore many new things and develop new technologies.

              If ever the world was an oyster ready for harvest, this must be it. Call it the time to pop the shell and pluck some pearls.

            3. Flogger of metaphors doesn’t alliterate so while you can retain the title of Flogger of Fractals we might share the moniker of Monger of Metaphors.

          3. 2x
            ‘I think the spiritual laws,if we want to call them that, and the physical universe laws will merge at the quantum level.’ Yes. I find this interesting:

            http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~djm/higgsa.html

            Also this:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

            Especially this: ‘…the exchange of bosons always carries energy and momentum between the fermions, changing the charges of the fermions in the process.’

            It may give a partial explanation to the Emotion Scale phenomena. Also, to Life Continuum even in case of OT-s, not to mention when one ‘realizes’ a very pure state of being (kind of no-thing). Also, what David St Lawrence writes here. An OT may ‘acquire’ charge by misownership though (unaware) agreeing and creating can play a part in it.

            http://workabletechnology.com/?p=771

  10. The” light year kilo ton” bit is not so far from relying on needle reactions to date and locate.
    ” The incident was 4000 Quadrillion-787 Bazillion-895 TRillion-4 Farsec planet cycles and 45 seconds……………. ah no 47 seconds”

    The attention given to power and control is why Scientology is dangerous and why people craving power are in control of it.

    This definition also relates to the concept of sphere of influence that Ron talks about.

    1. Didn’t DM say power was when people will listen to you, in the Ted Koppel interview.

      People certainly listened to LRH, and now DM, although that is less and less.

  11. The core of this is probably true, in that a powerful being can control a larger area around him (or her) than a weak one. The stuff in parentheses though is just gobbledegook intended to sound scientific. “Spherical spatial length” could be interpreted as “volume”, but why didn’t he just say “volume”? And if there is a thetan anywhere who can move a kiloton of mass one light-year in a microsecond with just theta-power, that thetan won’t be found on this planet. In any case, moving a lot of mass very fast is not exactly the same as “control”, is it?

  12. First Hubbard tries to define power in physical terms and gets it wrong.

    Quoting Wikipedia:

    In physics, power is defined as the amount of energy consumed per unit time. In the MKS system, the unit of power is the joule per second (J/s), known as the watt (SI base units; 1 kg·m2/s3, “measures the rate of energy conversion or transfer”)

    So in physics, power is defined as “kilograms square meters per cubic seconds”.

    Then Hubbard says his incorrect definition of power is measured by NOTHING ELSE than the distance… What happened to the mass per second in his original formula?

    Not only did he get it wrong and shows he has no clue about physics. He also contradicts himself in the same sentence.

    If full OT means full KRC (Knowledge/Responsibility/Control) means total knowledge, then it also means an OT not being clueless of that which ones seeks to conquer (the MEST universe, according to Hubbard). This is very basic Sun Tzu (Art of war). And working so hard to conquer the MEST universe with all the different processes and angles, Hubbard gets to this 30 years after his Theta-MEST theory. And he bragged about having studied physics (watt is defined in the very basic courses). It just seems plain weird.

    What is even weirder is how we as scientologists read such a thing and go “uh-hmmmm. Yes! I got that!”, and sign off on the course checksheet. Scientologists must have the most advanced form of justification ability where they are able to make anything Hubbard says right through mental self-trickery.

    1. Geir,

      I think you are coming at this from the wrong angle. You will spin your head around trying to figure out the maths and physics and it factually does make no sense. Try this angle instead:

      Power is a Newtonian physics concept involving mechanical forces and work. It only applies to specific forces acting over distances on specific objects. It does not apply to “spheres of influence” or other abstract concepts.

      Power is also an abstract human term that loosely describes the ability to influence other humans.

      These two things are homonyms. They are not the same.

      Hubbard conflated them using the old trick of blinding the populace with science.

    2. Isene: Scientologists must have the most advanced form of justification ability where they are able to make anything Hubbard says right through mental self-trickery.

      LOL! Luv it.

  13. To me – Power is the ability to confront or not confront being doing having at will. The higher the confront or non confront at will, the higher the power of an OT. You are or not Being, You are or not Doing, You are or not Having to different gradients. Free to be do have in any directions determines Power level. IMHO

    1. Hi Eric. I found in your opinion that we always “are”: being, doing, having, living… no matter if we try to be or not to be, we always “are” anyway. But, it’s not a state, as you said is freedom in any direction and different gradients. We are not something, we become dynamically as we are being-doing-having freely.
      And as nothing remains isolated from the enviroment and systematic human sets, and nothing is entirely free, I think the idea of pandeterminism is beyond autodeterminism.

      The Power would be a level of movement and pandeterministic influence.

      1. Example of Pandeterminism: dialectics, and simple dialogue.
        Because it is a summatory from two vectors (autodeterminism) in order to achieve or reach something. And it’s not the desires, intentions or coercions of 1 vector. It’s not control of one over the other, it’s an agreement.
        Dialectics has power.
        Same as teaching and education.

        According to Lao Tzu and paraphrasing its concept, “the more free you are from your ego, the more powerful man you are”. The control and battle is with the ego, everything else is leisures and distractions, ego defenses to not being confronted.

  14. Consider that Power is potential of energy. Then this is relation between parts of MEST. M – kilo-tons, Time – microsecond, Space – light-year. E=M*S/T. Einstein’s E=mc^2. „c” is speed of light (km per sec) = space per time (S/T). Almost the same formula 🙂 You can change place of variable in equation and see what is mater or time or space.
    Also we can say that’s mean haw much mass can thetan create per unit of time and how far he can put it.

          1. I totally agree with you, Isene, that physics not true. Not Newton Law of gravity either Einstein was right about speed of light. On big scale physics makes errors. But those laws gave us a big piece of progress in technologies. LRH as well is not very accurate, but general idea give as some benefits. It’s work for me, it’s have some sense, it’s not completely wrong. The very knowledge that it’s not total true is enough for me.
            So I took your challenge, and it has some sense for me.

    1. Val: Also we can say that’s mean haw much mass can thetan create per unit of time and how far he can put it.

      Chris: Without taking up the assumption of a thetan or of a Jesus Christ for that matter, where is this mass & distance that the thetan creates?

  15. Thank you for this post. This HCOB was one of the first I encountered that I could not accept as being something I might one day be able to understand when I was “OT enough” or some such. I recognized it as nonsense when I first saw it.

    The capitalized itallics statement makes sense for the most part, if you just take the statement without the definitions. But a startling revelation it is not. It is so obvious, it didn’t really need to be said. It’s like making a statement such as, “the secret to holding a job is to show up on time and do the work well.”

    The part that throws people, in my opinion, is the gibberish definition, “light-year kilo-tons per microsecond.” I think LRH added that in to try to make an overly simplistic statement sound impressive and scientific, but it only obfuscates and exaggerates and sounds idiotic after thinking about it for thirty seconds.

    The definition itself contradicts the basic statement. Is LRH saying to demonstrate power, one must move, carry, or transport, some kiloton quantity of some unnamed material the distance of a light year every one-millionth of a second, or that he should try to control as much as he can around him?

    1. John Doe: “or that he should try to control as much as he can around him?”

      Chris: Probably this one.

      Even this one is pompous when we understand that Hubbard takes credit for the entire horsepower generated by an entire generation of organized faithful, and “50,000 years of thinking men,” That is just as wrong as his physics.

  16. “THE POWER (defined as light-year kilo-tons per microsecond) OF A THETAN IS MEASURED BY NOTHING ELSE THAN THE DISTANCE (defined as spherical spatial length) AROUND HIM IN HIS ENVIRONMENT THAT HE CAN CONTROL.”

    I can’t do anything with this definition of power. The italics is just blah, blah for me. I don’t remember having read this (I know only this: “The Power of a Thetan stems from his ability to hold a position in space.”

    IMO there is also a flaw regarding to “… distance around him/that he can control …”.
    So what if sb can control sth in the distance but cannot control sth close to him? I think one mistake is the generalization of many different situations. Example: I know a person who is very good in controlling cars and mechanics; but he is not good at all in “controlling “ a person /persons (controlling meant in a positive way, I don’t mean dominating). This has nothing to do with distance but with different situations and abilities. People are different in being able of controlling different things. Some can control many different things and thus are quite able persons overall. And then you can spin it even further with the micro-cosmos and macro-cosmos and the consideration of space (I experienced the wildest phenomena when playing around with the consideration of space).

  17. Splog: “You use Newtonian concepts in an attempt to show space being created. ”

    I used a simple Newtonian notation as that was the apparent level with which you had started, vis-a-vis your F x d argument.

    However, you are quite correct that Newtonian physics would be inadequate to describe Power in relation to alteration of Space. Likewise I would expect relativistic physics to also fail. Why? Because what we are talking about will be most likely described in Planck units and physical (quantum) phenomena associated with those units may change the color of the outcome compared to any current reference as much as relativistic physics changed classical concepts.

    There are, however, analogues between classical and relativistic physics (E=1/2mv^2 cf. E=1/2mc^2) so I expect it is likely there will be analogues at the Planck scale, as well. This means that the ideas conferred by Newtonian physics will give us insight into the workings of space and time at the Planck level.

    One such Newtonian analogue that I have mentioned before would be the effect of inertia at the quantum level. We see inertia in the Newtonian framework as the tendency for an object in motion to continue along a path until acted on by an outside force. At the quantum level, I expect a “quantum inertia” would keep an electron manifesting as a particle or a wave until some outside condition (like observation or absence of observation at a double slit) forced a change of the condensed state.

    This is the sort of thing I have expounded on earlier. If you (Splog, or anyone) is actually interested in the concepts and potentials of QM you are welcome to email me at 2ndxmr @ hushmail.com

    As much as I would like to explore the area, this blog setting just does not seem appropriate.

    1. I would like to explore some concepts on this blog, I don’t care about the “setting” and the public. As I see you know about physics (and I assume you know about electronics too), I feel this may be flying to some sort of interesting ideas, interesting thought chains, but I don’t see the connection to Scientology. Yes, there is a connection to Hubbard, but not with Scientology handling of materials. I would like to ask you something that’s entirely related to Scientology, and that’s the e-meter. Do you know why and how it works?
      I know what a skin galvanometer is. But what theory is behind the use of the e-meter on Scientology? I mean, physic interesting theories and personal thoughts. Please, link me if there was a previous answer or discussion to this.

      1. Petteko, there’s a book called Understanding the E-meter, where you can read all about what the meter reads on and the mechanics of the e-meter itself. Here’s an excerpt and the link to the book:
        ———————————————
        “Set up the meter and get someone to hold the cans. Tell the person that you are going to do a pinch test and then with the person holding the electrodes and the sensitivity set at normal for that person, with the needle visible on the meter dial, give a strong pinch on the person’s arm. Notice that there is a reaction on the meter and the needle moves. This is often accompanied by a rise in tone arm position.

        “You just saw life’s NOW reaction to applied force. It generated energy. If the TA also rose, it was because the added mass caused the carrier wave to be impeded so the tone arm had to be moved higher.

        “Now ask the person to, “Recall the moment of the pinch.”

        “Notice the surge of the needle on the E-Meter dial.”

        “Acknowledge the person and ask for the moment to be recalled again.

        “Each time the person recalls the pinch, you will see the needle react. But it will become less and less as the charge of the incident is as-ised, and with the mass blowing off, you will see that the blockage to the carrier wave is reduced and the tone arm moves down.

        “The reads you see on your E-Meter dial in the movement of the needle are visual manifestations of the shifts of masses, ridges and pictures in the mind of the preclear or actual mental energy which is generated or discharged by the preclear.”
        ———————————————-
        http://e-meter-star.com/books.files/Understanding_the_E_Meter.pdf

        1. These excerpts may be more what you’re looking for:

          “For the meter to be read, the tiny flow of electrical energy through the preclear has to remain constant. When this tiny flow is reduced due to increased resistance, the needle of the E-Meter movement moves off the dial to the left. This happens because the preclear pulls in mass. This is actual mental mass (condensed energy), and this mass acts as a resistance to the flow of electrical energy from the E-Meter. The tiny carrier wave becomes partially blocked.
          […]

          “The tone arm simply regulates how much of the battery’s pressure or voltage is required to push the carrier wave through the preclear. The required pressure or voltage is determined by the amount of mental mass or resistance present in the preclear.
          […]

          “An electrical field exists at a distance from, or within, the body of the preclear. The tiny electrical flow from the E-Meter, acting as a carrier wave, which is passed through the body of the preclear, is influenced by electrical shifts and disturbances which occur in this ‘field’.

          “The preclear is also surrounded by such things as masses, pictures and ridges and an entire record of the past which we call a time track.

          “What are these pictures composed of? It has been established that this mental energy, such as is contained in a picture, and the energy of Earth or of the electric light company, are different only in wave length. Mental energy is simply a finer, higher level physical energy.”

          http://e-meter-star.com/books.files/Understanding_the_E_Meter.pdf

          1. I meant, -what kind of theory outside Scientology (maybe a different approach) is behind the use of the e-meter as used on Scientology?-
            I have that book, but thanks for the excerpts. A year ago a C/S shared with me his personal thoughts and explanations (that was supposed to be consistent with the book, but going deeper). I will wait to see a public discussion about this. But as a started, there are 2 particular excerpts that caught my attention as being debatable. This would be examples of what kind of explanation I am looking for:

            “An electrical field exists at a distance from, or within, the body of the preclear. The tiny electrical flow from the E-Meter, acting as a carrier wave, which is passed through the body of the preclear, is influenced by electrical shifts and disturbances which occur in this ‘field’.

            Obs: 1. an electrical field is so old and ambigous concept. 2. the electrical flow from the e-meter as a carrier wave. 3. all kind of measurements in contact with the skin (and without direct contact), such as, for example, impedance (touchpads), that may provide information or interact somehow. All of this could be related between radionics elements, reiki, to interferences to the e-meter with a smartphone and energy pollution. Just saying.

            “What are these pictures composed of? It has been established that this mental energy, such as is contained in a picture, and the energy of Earth or of the electric light company, are different only in wave length. Mental energy is simply a finer, higher level physical energy.”

            Obs: 1.demonstration of wave lengths. 2. should be super-luminal information (according to the recent investigations). The description is not consistent with the theories about a super-luminal field.

      2. There was a long e-meter discussion on scnforum.org 3-4 years ago… I may or up a new one here. AI am in Greece sailing and answering this via my phone, I will be less active this week.

        1. I had a long discussion a year ago via e-mail about this. Looking back, that was very strange and weird. Between all the weirdness there was some nice and interesting concepts that may not be related to Scientology after all, but it could be interesting as techniques and experiments. I will share what I have if I see something close enough again (or something debunked). Have a nice Rod Stewart travel 😀

            1. A C/S that some time ago I suggested you to contact him. I wonder if he is here or may be reading this. lol

  18. On a short observation:

    Shouldn’t it said “influence” instead of “control”?
    The rest is fine as a metaphor, since it’s not physics, but that word seems to be the problem to me. There are plenty of examples about the power of influence versus inadequate and pushed control.
    I find the word “power” is related to “hability” and “richness” and “greatness”. (See. “what is greatness?”).

    I mean, I think I understand Hubbard and he is saying: “power is what a man can be/do/have in control of his expanding spherical dynamics”.

    But something is weird on this. On a simple example of life it will be more clear.

    1. I will answer myself with an example of life:

      THE POWER (defined as light-year kilo-tons per microsecond) OF A THETAN IS MEASURED BY NOTHING ELSE THAN THE DISTANCE (defined as spherical spatial length) AROUND HIM IN HIS ENVIRONMENT THAT HE CAN CONTROL.

      A family guy, Steve, has distance from his family and childrens (because they are scientologists and he is not). Thus, Steve has no power over his family. What kind of light-year kio-tons per microsecond he could send around him? So, Steve is a FAT guy, he is defined as spherical spatial length, so he can control himself and he is his own enviroment (or his body is). Thus, Steve has power as a thetan over the matter. He can control 1st dynamic, and is destroying it (because of his thetan powers that can create and destroy), and that dynamics conflict is because his 2nd dynamic failed so badly, so out of his control. Now Steve has food on his enviroment. And sometime later, he is looking a gun over the table that is close to him by the length of an arm. Do the maths! 😀

  19. My opinion on Hubbard’s definition of power:

    In articulating that incredibly intelligent sounding definition of power, I think Hubbard was in part trying to sound incredibly intelligent, and part “if you can’t dazzle them with real intelligence, or truth, baffle and confound them with bullshit”.

    Which he also did in many other situations.

    Dio

  20. Some observations:

    If you study much of Scientology at all, you can immediately observe that LRH preferred to make up his own definitions and then extrapolate from THOSE definitions. This definition of power is one of those definitions.

    This definition will be taken at face value because of its similarity and association to poorly or never understood prior science definitions. The FACT is that the vast majority of people DO NOT UNDERSTAND many, if not most highly abstract or scientific definitions and yet are considered to be educated. After all, they do have their high school and college diplomas and they did pass those exams with a minimum 70% score. They have also learned that in real life these definitions have no real value anyway, its what’s extrapolated from them that counts. Most of their science and math classes were an exercise in memorization of formulae and algorithms, immediately forgotten after the tests were administered.

    Only the tiniest percentage of the student population will ever study up to a level where they will personally confirm any of the formulas, laws, principles, algorithms, etc. as true. And once they get to that level, if they are authentic scientists, they will hold that information in place as theory, and never truth as they extrapolate and manipulate using whatever set of definitions and algorithms they are working with.

    So why is it such a surprise that people would ignore LRH’s definitions (or take them on a conditonal basis) and focus on whatever practical applications that may be useful? After all, that’s what we do in school, in life, and in general. Please show me the person who can demonstrate a complete and accurate understanding of the laws of electricity taken from the vantage point of several different scientific disciplines.

  21. (defined as light-year kilo-tons per microsecond)

    Just evaluating it some more, If it makes any sense at all, it should probably read:

    (defined as light-year x kilo-tons per microsecond)

    (defined as light-year kilo-tons per microsecond)

    Then that could be reduced to:

    distance x weight per unit of time.

    Power is the distance an amount of weight travels per unit of time.

    That is similar to the definition or formula for horsepower.

    horsepower

    A unit of power equal to 550 foot-pounds per second (745.7 watts).
    The power of an engine measured in terms of this.

    Then there is the definition of “power””

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29

    In physics, power is defined as the amount of energy consumed per unit time. In the MKS system, the unit of power is the joule per second (J/s), known as the watt (in honor of James Watt, the eighteenth-century developer of the steam engine). For example, the rate at which a light bulb converts electrical energy into heat and light is measured in watts—the more wattage, the more power, or equivalently the more electrical energy is used per unit time.[1][2]

    Energy transfer can be used to do work, so power is also the rate at which this work is performed. The same amount of work is done when carrying a load up a flight of stairs whether the person carrying it walks or runs, but more power is expended during the running because the work is done in a shorter amount of time. The output power of an electric motor is the product of the torque the motor generates and the angular velocity of its output shaft. The power expended to move a vehicle is the product of the traction force of the wheels and the velocity of the vehicle.

    The integral of power over time defines the work done. Because this integral depends on the trajectory of the point of application of the force and torque, this calculation of work is said to be path dependent. End of quote frm wikipedia.

    Hubbard was just greatly exaggerating and spinning the definition of horsepower.

    Likely to just to leave his audience dazzled and baffled until I figured it out, some 31 yrs later.

    🙂

    Dio

    PS> Hubbard was said to have an I. Q. of 225. That makes sense from observing him. Not too many people were able to out wit him.

    That gave him a very good ability to articulate data.

    And for that reason he was able to glean and articulate and extrapolate and add to, the data of 50,000 yrs of thinking men and come up with scientology.

    Although it is a lot of truth, laced with a lot of bullshit.

    1. Dio, I’m curious where you got this datum that LRH had an IQ of 225, which I’ve never heard before. From my observation, Hubbard was a very crafty fellow but not all that sharp at the specific things that are measured on the Stanford-Binet IQ test.

      As a side note, there was a study done a few years ago on the relationship between IQ and leadership. It turns out the most successful IQ range for a leader in most situations is about 130-140. It gives them a definite edge, but too much higher than that and a disconnect occurs where the would-be leader and the rest of the population have a hard time relating to each other.

      1. Aeolus,

        You: I’m curious where you got this datum that LRH had an IQ of 225, which I’ve never heard before.

        Me: I read it on line somewhere. And based on his record I figured that is likely or possible. I am sure it is an arbitrary evaluated guess. The main point being that he was well above average.

        Even though he was not entirely sane.

        He also said, something to the effect, that intelligence and sanity do not always come in the same package. (I am sure he was referring to himself.)

        He also operated on this datum:

        “Tact is for those who do not have enough intelligence to be witty.”

        I can’t recall ever seeing him excercising tact.

        Hubbard was a very complex being.

        Roughly equally intelligent, able, insane, a criminal, and a crazy lunatic wildman.

        Another of his main operating datums was that if you can’t dazzle them with brains, baffle them with wit and bullshit. (called brain fucking) (I wish I knew a more kosher word or term for that issue.)

        And sixty three yrs later people are still trying to figure him out, unravel, parse, and evaluate and understand and separate the wheat from the chaff of all what he said and did.

        It is like: how do you keep a child busy and occupied:

        Give him a problem to figure out, that will take him a long time to figure out.

        Jesus also gave parables and philosophy to people that people have been trying to figure out for 2000 yrs.

        I doubt if there is a more significant, more charged, controversial subject on earth, than Hubbard and scientology. How many blogs and discussion forums are there of people arguing and fighting and discussing what Hubbard said and did?

        Is lam is up there too. It dominates the political realm.

        Scientology pretty well dominates the social realm or internet.

        Is there anyone on this blog or any where in the fz world or in the cos world that will leave such an effect on this planet?

        Dio

        PS: I see that the new ideal org in my city is on a pretty aggressive advertising campaign. They have hard hitting or attention getting ads on the sides of buses, on bus shelters and billboards.

        1. Dio: I doubt if there is a more significant, more charged, controversial subject on earth, than Hubbard and scientology.

          Chris: In the scheme of earth, Scientology is small potatoes. Hardly anyone is aware of it save a few thousand of us. Everyone else? Not even on their radar more than as a joke or an anecdote on one of the magazine entertainment shows.

        2. Hi Dio, let me play with the data of your source:

          “Hubbard was said to have an I. Q. of 225. That makes sense from observing him. Not too many people were able to out wit him. That gave him a very good ability to articulate data.”

          I would reply something like this: “it is demonstrated that low IQ people seems to worship high IQ leaders, and even worry about the subject. But you don’t need to have a real high IQ to make low IQ people think that you are smarter and even have an higher spectacular mentality. An average 130-140 high IQ can do that excellently”.

          I’m glad that you said “I read it on line somewhere” because if you feel any invalidation here, that would be redirected to your source, and if your source can be reached, I hope he takes my answer. It’s too much bullshit to talk bullshit about bullshit, so I’ll try to make this clear. From the FBI behavioral analysis records, you can investigate (not just saying, you can investigate this indeed) that most of the famous gurus and cults that deceived people, no matter what they did exactly, they depended on a sort of circumstances with many factors, one of them is the intelligence of the influencer, and another is the needs of the followers; so the leader becomes in what they wanted and then brings what they think they wanted. Is a boundaries and relationships manipulation, and there is a study about a list of factors that a group must have to become a cult, with an overall of different levels of risk (some of the leaders are sociopaths with high IQ). (blah blah) the point is that on the specific treat of the IQ on the influencer, none of them were highly superior than 170, and the most highest IQ were indeed accompanied with a sort of disorders that even become worse as smarter the guy is. That is true. When you are “smarter” as in a factor of IQ, you can become “a smarter aberration”, or your disorders/conditions evolve with more complexity.

          So, my point is that I agree with your observation “I figured that is likely or possible” about Hubbard getting an high IQ profile. But NOT SO SMART. 225???? WTF that sounds like an exaggeration like the ones from his biographies. He has the profile, as you should know already, that higher IQ suffers from obsessions, mania, paranoia, delusions, but the most clear condition is their attitude, as they become defensive and weird. They becomes intolerant to “slower people”, or people that don’t understand them well, and later they detach from social contact, as they lack of emotional IQ (and others deepest factors). on a “scientology slang” way, I traduce this to: “the more IQ you have, more capacity has your analytical mind to justify and telling you that you are correct. More capacity to hide your reactive bank”. 😀

          So, in order to being just and take this opportunity, I will tell you what I have analyzed from Hubbard:

          Hubbard was an enneatype 8 wing 7 (enneagram model) in a road of constant degradation. Even his “wing” had degraded to 1. From 1967 onwards he was on the lower levels of development.
          http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/typeeight.asp#.UgCYUo3rwZ4

          Hubbard had a junguian typology ENTP (with high IQ)
          http://www.personalitypage.com/ENTP.html
          http://www.typelogic.com/entp.html

          I assume he developed between many intelligences (from Howard Gardner multiple intelligences) the linguistic and intrapersonal above the rest, I’m in doubt about visual and interpersonal since he was bad at them while had a fixation or interest aswell. (that’s the 8 intelligence model, on the 9-model, the “existencial” intelligence would fit to him, but I don’t validate that model). My points that make me doubt on those intelligences are his true militar records, on wich it tells that he wasn’t good on “visual/spatial” intelligence, and his behavior with the crew were akward.

          So, I rate him like a clever “wintastic” ENTP with 150-170 IQ.

          But, who cares about IQ anyway? The g factor is not always a good representation, and depends on multiple task, and each implies differents types of intelligence. I would put more attention to the GAI trends rater than the FSIQ like a label. (see WAIS test).
          And please, check the dates about everything I put on. It’s interesting in comparison with Scientology “recent developments”.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale#Verbal_IQ_.28VIQ.29

    2. Hi Dio, let me play with the data of your source:

      “Hubbard was said to have an I. Q. of 225. That makes sense from observing him. Not too many people were able to out wit him. That gave him a very good ability to articulate data.”

      I would reply something like this: “it is demonstrated that low IQ people seems to worship high IQ leaders, and even worry about the subject. But you don’t need to have a real high IQ to make low IQ people think that you are smarter and even have an higher spectacular mentality. An average 130-140 high IQ can do that excellently”.

      I’m glad that you said “I read it on line somewhere” because if you feel any invalidation here, that would be redirected to your source, and if your source can be reached, I hope he takes my answer. It’s too much bullshit to talk bullshit about bullshit, so I’ll try to make this clear. From the FBI behavioral analysis records, you can investigate (not just saying, you can investigate this indeed) that most of the famous gurus and cults that deceived people, no matter what they did exactly, they depended on a sort of circumstances with many factors, one of them is the intelligence of the influencer, and another is the needs of the followers; so the leader becomes in what they wanted and then brings what they think they wanted. Is a boundaries and relationships manipulation, and there is a study about a list of factors that a group must have to become a cult, with an overall of different levels of risk (some of the leaders are sociopaths with high IQ). (blah blah) the point is that on the specific treat of the IQ on the influencer, none of them were highly superior than 170, and the most highest IQ were indeed accompanied with a sort of disorders that even become worse as smarter the guy is. That is true. When you are “smarter” as in a factor of IQ, you can become “a smarter aberration”, or your disorders/conditions evolve with more complexity.

      So, my point is that I agree with your observation “I figured that is likely or possible” about Hubbard getting an high IQ profile. But NOT SO SMART. 225???? WTF that sounds like an exaggeration like the ones from his biographies. He has the profile, as you should know already, that higher IQ suffers from obsessions, mania, paranoia, delusions, but the most clear condition is their attitude, as they become defensive and weird. They becomes intolerant to “slower people”, or people that don’t understand them well, and later they detach from social contact, as they lack of emotional IQ (and others deepest factors). on a “scientology slang” way, I traduce this to: “the more IQ you have, more capacity has your analytical mind to justify and telling you that you are correct. More capacity to hide your reactive bank”. 😀

      So, in order to being just and take this opportunity, I will tell you what I have analyzed from Hubbard:

      Hubbard was an enneatype 8 wing 7 (enneagram model) in a road of constant degradation. Even his “wing” had degraded to 1. From 1967 onwards he was on the lower levels of development.
      http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/typeeight.asp#.UgCYUo3rwZ4

      Hubbard had a junguian typology ENTP (with high IQ)
      http://www.personalitypage.com/ENTP.html
      http://www.typelogic.com/entp.html

      I assume he developed between many intelligences (from Howard Gardner multiple intelligences) the linguistic and intrapersonal above the rest, I’m in doubt about visual and interpersonal since he was bad at them while had a fixation or interest aswell. (that’s the 8 intelligence model, on the 9-model, the “existencial” intelligence would fit to him, but I don’t validate that model). My points that make me doubt on those intelligences are his true militar records, on wich it tells that he wasn’t good on “visual/spatial” intelligence, and his behavior with the crew were akward.

      So, I rate him like a clever “wintastic” ENTP with 150-170 IQ.

      But, who cares about IQ anyway? The g factor is not always a good representation, and depends on multiple task, and each implies differents types of intelligence. I would put more attention to the GAI trends rater than the FSIQ like a label. (see WAIS test).
      And please, check the dates about everything I put on. It’s interesting in comparison with Scientology “recent developments”.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale#Verbal_IQ_.28VIQ.29

  22. Its unreal for homo sapiens. Therefore even if its true its a skipped gradient and it can´t and will never be understood. hence its not true for me.

    You see what is real is the following.
    The definition of HP (horsepower) is real:
    1 hp = when you lift 75 kg 1 meter up.

    1. spongebob: “1 hp = when you lift 75 kg 1 meter up.”

      Me: I my world 1 hp is 1/92 of what you get on the crank of my Buell at full roar, and 1/71 on the Kawasaki under similar conditions 🙂

      Neither engine is very good at lifting my 60kg up in the air, but they are very very good at propeling me horizontally at rather high velocity. And when I ride them to work I even get F/N VVVVVGIs. 10 minutes on bike, 40 minutes in car, what’s not to like?

  23. Splog: ” … “The speed of light is not a constant of energy speed.”

    This statement is in direct conflict with modern physics, especially Special Relativity which demonstrates that a) all frames of reference are valid and b) the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant”

    1) The “vacuum” isn’t a vacuum, It’s a medium – quite likely predominantly composed of the Higgs field. The evidence for it being a medium is that particles spontaneously arise from it. Being a medium, there will be an associated minima of some sort. The Planck constants indicate the minima of the medium.

    2) The electromagnetic spectrum has a considered low end of about 10^-12 meters. That means there is about a factor of 10^23 difference between what we consider a short wavelength (and can measure) and the minima of the Planck length. We don’t KNOW that light speed is constant down to 10^-35 meters wavelength, but we do now know that:

    3) The Wheeler delayed-choice-quantum-eraser experiment clearly shows that entangled phenomena are not bounded by the speed of light, or time as we conceive it. The Wheeler results point to either super-luminal speed or a simultaneous condition (a superposition) of time and no-time.

    That’s why I say Hubbard was very advanced in his thinking: the statement I referred to points in the direction of super-luminal speed.

    1. It seems to me that in this Court of Public Opinion, L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology just got acquitted. 😉

          1. I see that Hubbard got himself in crescendo to the court of public opinion from the first moment he showed up as how we know him now. He never faced any charges, since he was not present in public courts. But, I understand what you meant, and even if Hubbard gets some kind of acquittal relative to a viewpoint, Scientology doesn’t because of the use and enforcement of Hubbard writings.

            1. And we cannot separate what Hubbard may have written from what he did. Scientology enforces because Hubbard wrote the rule to enforce. No separation.

    2. And on this one, I do believe on super-luminal speed and a field of source. But I don’t follow why Hubbard would be very advanced in his thinking if, for example, today could be possible the existence of a super-luminal field. What thinking exactly? on wich references?
      Am I missing something? Hubbard said something about super or supra-physical thing, specifically talking about speed or movement (vibration)? o.o

      1. Petteko: “Am I missing something? Hubbard said something about super or supra-physical thing, specifically talking about speed or movement (vibration)?”

        What LRH said:

        “The speed of light is not a constant of energy speed. The shorter the period of emission of energy from a source, which is to say, the shorter the wave length of the energy, the greater is the speed of that energy. As one ranges up the tone scale one comes into the near instantaneousness of thought.”

        In this statement the super-luminal reference is clearly related to thought but there is also reference to velocity increasing with speed. For a certain band of EM radiation we are satisfied saying that the velocity is constant and equal to the speed of light, c.

        Recent measurements have shown that the speed of light in the “vacuum” is not constant and that is because the “vacuum” is not a vacuum. Space is an invisible medium to us just as water might be an invisible medium to a fish, nevertheless, as a medium, it shows some behavioral similarities to water. For instance, density. You may know that in the ocean the density of the water will changes at various depths and will form layers. Submarines take advantage of this because their speed of movement is different in the different density layers.

        Space also has regions of differing density and as light moves through these density variations, its speed changes. As well, there is a factor called phase velocity which is essentially the phenomenon of wavelength-related speed change, again linked to the density of the medium. This is fairly new data and is in clear alignment with what Hubbard said 50+ years before.

        1. Thanks. This is a complete answer and links to Hubbard writings. But I may consider that it’s still too general and an average student about waves could have said that, and that people before him “believed” on something similar (over the light), even scientists who failed to prove their tesis. Isaac Asimov is an example of advanced inspiration, even for later scientists. What Hubbard adds to that thought (if he was not the source), is the relation with the tone scale and that it could be developed as an ability on “instant thought”. That is ambigous, and I consider he was talking about “telepathy” and “channeling” on the higher tone. Even “inspiration” and “unveiling”, like the akashic records and stuff.

          I know that Hubbard also said that the MEST universe was only a part among the THETA universe, like a splint on a finger, or a key in the middle of the keyhole. What would that imply? As a starter, that the concept of thetan is incomplete. I can suppose that he was talking about the spiritual universe (supra-physics field), but it’s not clear if he was leading into dualism, venn sets, gradients. I may consider it was a gradient, only a part of a thetan manifests on the MEST universe, and controls the genetic entity. It would take the picture of a fractal. So, what happen with the other part of that thetan? I mean, the bigger part of that fractal. The part that is not manifesting on the MEST universe. You know what? I think that part should not be called thetan, because of the origin of theta-n (power) that only apply to the MEST manifestation. The rest would be only “theta”, and that would be “exterior”. Can you make sense of this? I think that would be “disembodied beings”, as theta clusters (but not manifestating on MEST, so forget BTs. THE manifestation, is the MEST “n” part of theta).

          Can you see how all of this is ancient knowingness? It’s plagued with esoterism, and only have a little dose of science. As wherever you could take Hubbards claims to wherever you want, it will be a subjective matter. We need to be careful because people might feel that if some claims from Hubbard were confirmed as “scientifically proven”, then all of his claims and thus Scientology will feel validated. And the valid statements will be twisted after all, with a more close looking. We need to be careful with the confirmation bias. Hubbard made controversial things and made interesting bonds, and in matter of abstractions and bounds, so as Lobsang Rampa did:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobsang_Rampa

          We are not in organized religion anymore, do you? If a 60% of a book is correct, the entire book is not true. A 1% of poison will contaminates the 99% of remaining water. I am hard with this, its a matter of ethics. 😀

    1. Genetic entities make the best lab for Hubbard’s type of research work.

      That’s humans with no theta endowment, of which the CO$ has plenty.

      Dio

    2. LOL Good one Rafael SN. Pat Broeker told us that LRH was doing research on racehorses that had never been done before. He didn’t say what that was but did you notice the Kentucky Derby winner this year? That was because of LRH. (humor)

  24. Power is the ability to pick your teeth with the Chrysler Building. Those darned OTs stomping on all the buildings need to take their kilo-tons outta here at light speed. Out damn thetans, out! Shoo 😉

        1. I’m not resting, I’m busy elsewhere. Communicating my views on this blog has been successfully discouraged by the “need” for moderation – essentially handicapping me as a dissonant voice and taking the fun out of participation.

          I should feel flattered – considering the definition of handicap: “advantage or disadvantage given in an attempt to equalize”. 🙂

          In any case, sometimes I check out the posts of those who have a clear head and a clean heart.

            1. The only reason you gave was that you wanted to be sure not to miss my comments and be able to answer my questions. That is such a weak explanation and I don’t buy it.

            2. The more you whine, the less chance you have of getting out of mod. Think of it this way, right now, for you, this blog has the same format Marty’s.

            3. “The more you whine, the less chance you have of getting out of mod.”

              So you mean all I have to do is knuckle under and be nice and compliant and never give you a hard time by not coming around pretty quickly to agreeing with your point of view. Is that the type of poster you want?

              As for Marty’s, it’s not the same. There everybody is on moderation, like your blog used to be. Here I everybody else is more or less in a live back and forth exchange, which I can’t participate in. Thus I don’t feel like posting much. Maybe that’s the effect you wanted to create.

            4. You seem to have a really hard time understanding what I am saying.

              Here: You have a track of constant nitpi king resulting in derailing or wasting mine and other’s time. To limit this, you are under moderation so that I can catch all your questions and nitpicking such as the one I respond to now. And if you continue this line right here, it only reinforces the reason why you are under moderation. You are free to continue this so as to further wear out my patience and ensure the moderation is permanent. My house. Your call.

            5. Following Marildi’s response: https://isene.me/2013/08/02/hubbard-on-power/#comment-44925
              To all readers:

              This is an example of what I just discovered. My comment now looks weird and inappropriate, if you associate all the Marildi’s comments that went out of moderation. So, you have to check carefully the “time line” of each to make sense.

              Marildi: “Geir, I distinctly remember you commenting one time way back that it hampers communication on forums when there is a lag between replies. ”

              It seems so. But that’s trouble for the moderated commenter, as the other didn’t see their responses (if there was). But, in right time, and in full power of a good response, Marildi take me on this, that at least I’m referring as “trying to turn it personal”. I “facepalmed” twice at this. So, more than entering in a game, I’m going to make something productive from something unproductive (as I am commenting about this). This is a case of “group thinking” reflecting “group thinking” in everyone else. (That’s because of that clear accusation of interest conflict). So, lets say I serve my own ego and then, maybe, some other causes and agendas in alignement with my reality, as every average person would do. [trying to connect something… failed]

              I am lost. What I see is that I’m not Chewbacca, I was serious using that word, everyone can check it out:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

              😀

              And also check:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

              [recalling the plot…]
              I know some people may want to attach all the commenters (followers) on this blog as if they were allies, coaligned and serving its creator (buzzfeeder). That would be interesting. As if they were a single mass. As if the commenters were sheeps in the flock of the blog’s author. I’ve had plenty of that, didn’t see that coming up here. I thought everyone here’s would be some kind of “free thinker” (not tinker) with more or less Scientology involvement or background. 😀

              Ok, I’m done with the game.

              Response to Marildi (only): If you are going to reply on this, no matter what, respond to this and ignore the above. I could ask you about those calculations, but I won’t. I don’t need to say “calculations”, I could say “I don’t like your comment” and not being specific about why. Are you an Scorpio female? 😀

              Marildi: “But I also highly resented the picture you were painting of me, which I didn’t agree with, and that’s why I wanted to publicly state my case.”

              There you are saying that if Geir jumps from the bridge, everyone would follows him. Or that would be your fear. See how the group-thinking is related? I see you are painting your case by your own (that’s the reason I stated about your case publicly). See why? I’m nobody. So, what are you saying to me? Suspicious, confabulated, mysteries. That’s is boring! I’ve had enough from where I am and where I’d been. And yes, it’s boring. Put the number to that.
              Please, don’t forget to see my humor among all the lines, there are so many jokes. And is long because I use the translator to evaluate the grammar, and keep writing once I started. See? me, I, me… lol 😀 Don’t talk me about ego. I’m so close on my own case, that’s why I jump when something dislike me. Excuse the irony. 🙂

              Greetings.

            6. Petteko, thanks for all your thoughts – and the real comm, from the being. 😉 I’ll answer later when I have more time.

          1. Whining doesn’t become you. I have explained in detail why you are on moderation and it has nothing to do with any dissenting opinions.

            1. You are far from your best as well with the reasons you give, which don’t really hold any water.

            2. “As I said, whining doesn’t become you. Neither does bickering or acting dense.”

              The only reason you gave was that you wanted to be sure not to miss my comments and be able to answer my questions. That is such a weak explanation and I don’t buy it.

            3. Excuse moi, I never comment on threads like this, but I have a brief observations:
              Marildi:
              1. Even if Geir didn’t give you a good reason, suppose not the true one, that doesn’t give you more importance as you seem to be claiming for attention in every opportunity. Moderation would be a handicap if you have comments that were never published, and only you.
              2. If you say “a weak explanation and I don’t buy it”. Why don’t you say I DID NOT buy it? It is related to the past, when was the adequate timing to solve that.
              3. If something doesn’t fit to you, like the Geir responses, Why you fill the emptiness with opinions and conjectures indirectly to others? Why you see yourself like a dissonant and a dissenting voice? (if that’s not irony)
              4. And more simpler. Why you don’t believe Geir responses? Do you suspect of hidden intentions or interest conflict? (that’s what you seem to sell) How do you come to that conclusions?
              5. Why you insist on personal chatting with Geir, too much in comparison to other comments? And if you “check out the posts of those who have a clear head and a clean heart”, that feels like saying the posts you don’t check out are from people that doesn’t qualify. And it contradicts with all the Geir-Marildi chatting.

              My opinion: Geir moderates you because your chit-chat with him is bothering. (?)

              Geir: you could try giving another opportunity and looking what would happen. I mean, if Marildi is not under moderation for a test period, what’s the worst that would happen? At least that would release all the complains about the issue. 🙂

            4. Your request on her behalf is a good one. I will consider it despite that I have seen next to no change in Marildi in the past 3+ years (I believe she is the most “unchanging” person I’ve come across in my life), the chance of her behavior changing on this blog… I would rather bet on myself as the next Olympic gold medalist in the marathons. 😉

            5. Petteko, thank you very much for your attempt at an “intervention”. 🙂 Sincerely, I really give you credit for that.

              In my opinion, just about everything you have observed and listed out is the result of a broken comm line between me and Geir. I honestly didn’t understand why he suddenly started saying I was nit-picking and derailing threads – and that I was doing so “constantly”. I couldn’t even think of one example of doing that, unless he was calling it “nit-picking” when I tried to pin him down as to exactly what he was saying. Or when I tried to zero in on some point he made that I felt didn’t make sense.

              Things like that could be viewed as nit-picking, and I’ve already apologized to him for doing it as he is the blog owner and as such can demand different treatment than what others here are given. In the past, however, he has always allowed me full freedom of expression. and I think we both got a lot out of it and had fun too. So I was surprised by the sudden change in attitude. Nevertheless, I should have seen that what I was doing was getting to be more than he was willing to tolerate, and that is actually where I was dense. I hope this answers your questions. Thanks again for asking.

            6. Having you on moderation is not a problem. I have never censored anything you have ever written, much unlike other such blogs, it is like you wrote your comments the moment I approve them. No problem. Don’t make it one.

            7. Geir, I distinctly remember you commenting one time way back that it hampers communication on forums when there is a lag between replies. Now you claim it’s no big deal. Shoe on the other foot?

            8. This one is locsl to You only. And after a very fair warning, this back-and-forth has earned ypu permanent mod.

            9. That’s fine. I don’t plan on spending too much time here anyway. You’ve lost your sense of humor. Not as much fun as you used to be.

            10. I have lost my sense of humor regarding you. I have more fun to spend my time on than your bickering and unchanging nitpicking.

            11. What I don’t get is that you made a comment TO ME and said that “moderation is no problem”. I then replied to THAT comment and you called it “nit-picking” and that this “back and forth”(?) has earned me a permanent mod. I just don’t know you any more.

            12. p.s. That comment you made to me was in response to my comment to Petteko. So like I say, what “back and forth” are you talking about? And how was my comment nit-picking when it was on a parallel with yours? You already assured me that all this had nothing to do with any dissonant or dissenting opinion, so I don’t get it.

              But of course you can now take these further attempts at communication and label them as more nit-picking. In other words, you don’t allow communication any more. You give me no road to putting in a comm line. And even if I just post comments to others, you still jump in and originate comments to me. But I don’t feel I can freely communicate to you.

            13. You have been going on and on whining to to me and others on the same subject to the point where this is now permanently settled. Case closed.

            14. I see. But if you were looking for an excuse to put me on Permanent Moderation, you should have at least waited for something better than the exchange above! That was even more flimsy as an excuse than your “reason” for the Indefinite Mod sentence. I mean, come on! And now you sound like the Soup Nazi.

              “Permanently settled! Case closed! No soup for you! For LIFE!”

              Good thing I know you better than that. At least deep down.

              And you can’t say this is derailing the thread. It’s right on topic – POWER. There’s no better way to cut down a person’s power than to cut their comm lines. That’s just classic.

            15. If it really mattered to you, you could simply have sent me an email. But for some reason you insist on carrying on your public bickering.

            16. It does matter to me, Geir. We’ve shared a lot of comm and I care about you. That is something I’ve stated to others (“back channels”, as you call it) – and that’s the absolute truth. But I also highly resented the picture you were painting of me, which I didn’t agree with, and that’s why I wanted to publicly state my case.

            17. Isene to marildi: If it really mattered to you, you could simply have sent me an email. But for some reason you insist on carrying on your public bickering.

              Dee; Exactly!

            18. Marildi: “In other words, you don’t allow communication any more.”

              Chris: Nor any less! 😉

              All the while I’m reading your “communication” while you protest that you have no way to communicate has me reading between the lines. Projecting what Scientology and Scientologists do by rote in in this situation is not a fair characterization of Geir, the one fair blog host that I know. Scientology double-speak is so very innate; so very deeply ingrained into the veteran Scientologist that it seems to be make a very long road back to the starting point.

            19. Chris, I think you should come off being the proverbial cur dog, peeing on every bush. Just to stink it up a little.

              I think you’re capable of better than that. Seriously.

            20. You have run out of rational arguments so appeal in every direction for a reprieve for Scientology in “the court of public opinion.” It seems the people are speaking. As you said, “let those with eyes see.” I like irony.

            21. This feud is baffling. Your interactions were interesting and enlightening (even the bickering is funny 🙂 ) I’ve always found Miraldi a very balanced and fair contributor, I don’t really see what the problem is.

            22. I’ll add my opinion that I would prefer Marildi not be moderated. She is not a troll nor impolite. While her constant quoting of Hubbard did become rather tiresome she often also spurred some interesting discussion.

              It does make a blog more lively to have an opposing viewpoint. It is of course your blog and you can do what you will with it.

            23. It would make no discernable difference to you if her post was pending my approval or not. I want to catch them to reply appropriately to them. Not a problem for you or anyone else. Perhaps a perceived problem for Marildi. A benefit for me. Total sum = zero or slight plus depending on viewpoint.

            24. Geir: -I believe she is the most “unchanging” person I’ve come across- in virtual interactions via Internet. I would only add that part. Generally, on Internet, one does not know who are behind the nick-name, and we come to know a person by his -theta communications and entheta compensations- writings. Losing the temper on writings via Internet, is the most silly thing. I am not referring to anyone in particular, as each of us could lose it sometimes. It’s an ego thing, and is related to purposes and focused interests. On a very open and caritative view, even the straw man, red herrings and Chewbacca defenses, are present for our learning, integration and alignment (or re-alignment) with our purposes.

              aotc:
              The bickering could be baffling, the feud could be funny. It’s so relative. There is not any problem, as there would be not a goal, (or, if there is not a clear goal, there is not a clear problem). 😉
              But, I don’t see why a moderation could be a problem either, as to requesting the opposite. I only see a wrong behavior if your comments are censored. Is that the case? I don’t think so. And the worst thing would be that Geir has to approve and the comments will be out of timing… but, why would be that a problem too? Timing? This is not a chat. This is a wrong media if you think that. (I’m making a point, don’t take all of this personal)

              freebeeing:
              I consider that the situation is like a broken glass. There were many indirect accusations, suspicions, mistrust, misleading attitudes and straw man arguments as I could attest. Would there be a repairing process to this? If not, there is not a problem anymore.

              I put my attention to this “thing”, because I don’t like how people brings more importance to the little unproductive comments and pass over the big ones. I don’t like how people start making causes upon insignificances in order to end up satisfying and serving the ego of somebody.

            25. Petteko: “I put my attention to this “thing”, because I don’t like how people brings more importance to the little unproductive comments and pass over the big ones. I don’t like how people start making causes upon insignificances in order to end up satisfying and serving the ego of somebody.”

              By my calculations you have written more about the “little unproductive comments” than all of the other such comments combined. So whose ego are you serving, Mr. Chewbacca? I mean besides your own. 😛

            26. Chris – It’s my general impression. But since you like examples maybe you could provide examples of Miralidi being unfair and unbalanced.

              Geir – I think your replies to Miraldi show you’ve lost the plot with her.

            27. “Thankfully, this is not a democracy.”

              LRH didn’t believe democracy was workable either, unless it was a society of Clears. His own organization was pretty authoritarian, in fact. But at least he provided for a Committee of Evidence. In any truly despotic rule there would be no such thing. Such a ruler could care less about the will of the people.

            28. Contrasting LRH I am a firm believer in democracy for a society (although I don’t believe in Clears). But this is not a society. It is my blog. And you post your comments here because I am such a tolerant guy that I let you.

            29. I’ve admired and really appreciated how much you were willing to allow me to speak my mind all this time. That’s why it was such an ARC break that you would then cut my comm lines. Because no matter how you are looking at it, that is the isness for me. I hope it’s not too late for me to send you an email.

            30. Geir, did you get my emails or did they end up in your spam folder or something? I sent you one yesterday right after this comm cycle, and again several hours ago.

            31. Marildi: That’s why it was such an ARC break that you would then cut my comm lines.

              Chris: No comm line was cut. Neither has your comm been censored. Maybe it’s something else.

            32. Again with the LRH double speak. Hubbard’s committees of evidence were the same kangaroo courts we see in unjust situations everywhere. Committees of evidence have their findings approved when they arrive at the desired “findings” and they are re-convened until they do. LRH can never rightly be accused of being un-despotic.

            33. Marildi: “In any truly despotic rule there would be no such thing. Such a ruler could care less about the will of the people.”

              Chris: Hubbard made his low opinion of the “will of the people” clear when he outlawed petitioning collectively. Hubbard called petitioning collectively a crime that must be refused saying that collective petitioning was an “effort to overwhelm” and an effort to “hide the actual petitioner.” LRH pretended that individual petitioners could not be punished for petitioning and therefore had no excuse to be afraid. LOL! If any leader ever cared less than LRH about the will of the people, he was a bad one. Examples of his despotic leadership and abuse of power are legion and they are indisputable.

            34. Marildi: His own organization was pretty authoritarian, in fact.

              Chris: “Pretty” authoritarian? Imagine for a moment an organization more authoritarian than Scientology. What would that look like?

            35. Marildi: “Such a ruler could care less about the will of the people.”

              Chris: Such a ruler as Hubbard wrote the most beautiful piece of double-speak when he wrote his policy letter of 29 April 1965. The title is “Petition” and in it he writes,”The right to petition must not be denied.” After this he goes on to describe in detail 16 ways that petitioning must not be done . LOL! By the end, the reader is meant to be driven into an apathy about petitioning and then told “the sender . . . must not become apathetic.” This is perfect Pavlovian conditioning for only an illiterate who had not read past the first sentence of this HCOPL would dare write a petition.

            36. She cheerily promotes Hubbard and flatters anyone providing confirmation bias. But discussing to learn, not so much. Her agenda to defend and promote Scientology is solid without a crack. Understanding what is not Scientology is possible only in terms of how it relates to Scientology in her world view. Understanding others points of view takes a back seat to understanding how Scientology is correct, consistent, and utterly relevant at all times for all situations. This is an unbalanced view. And because it is biased with the agenda to justify and salvage the reputation of Scientology, regardless of any data to the contrary, it is unfair.

            37. Chris to Dexter: “This seems to me like an excellent use of the auditors code.”

              marildi to Chris: This seems to me like a poor use of the Auditor’s Code.

            38. The reason I felt Dexter described an excellent use of the Auditor’s Code was of because of points “1. I promise not to evaluate for the preclear or tell him what he should think about his case in session.” And “17. I promise not to enter comments, expressions or enturbulence into a session that distract a preclear from his case.”

              I understood Dexter to have had particular insight into a way in which he was personally entering in an arbitrary that was affecting the PC’s session and so was able to stop doing that. That is self correcting and excellent auditing and use of the Auditor’s Code.

              Why did you think he was misapplying the Auditor’s Code?

            39. Chris, I wasn’t referring to Dexter at all. Get serious! My comment was a reply to the one of yours just above it. You are continuously evaluating and invalidating – almost exclusively, if not entirely, with regard to me.

            40. I was writing to what you wrote, then what did you mean?

              Your impression of being invalidated is due to your close identification with Hubbard’s scriptures. When you write as though attempting to convince through the authority of Hubbard, I write to Hubbard. When you write from your heart, I write to your heart.

            41. Geir
              From a human viewpoint, it is “your” blog. From the perception of the One Source of Life, you are RESPONSIBLE for the space and the postulated particles called ‘blog’ and also responsible for the beings who enter this space and communicate here. In short, you are fully responsible for what is created in any way. ( ? )

            42. From a different angle: you are aware and can penetrate (one def.of havingness) IT with the ability of an expert to create value (blog)…you do the same with another activity to be able to pay for it. But it is not ‘yours’. You have a complete ‘havingness’ of it. I find it a truer word than ‘mine/yours’. My view. Not to mention thoughts….

              And yes, Marildi (or anybody) can send you a private email. Lots of things can get clear much faster and more effectively in a one-to-one way.

            43. Chris, You provide zero evidence to back up your ridiculously excessive claims. Fine, I cannot be bothered to trawl through past conversations either. But I see Miraldi’s behaviour and motivation 180 degrees differently from you. She applies much needed scepticism to the black and white comdemnation of Hubbard/Scn so beloved of yourself and others. You applaud that scepticism when it is applied against Scn.
              I believe there is a stage in the recovery process from Scn where a person is irrationally hostile to any positive comments about Hubbard/Scn and any attempt to question the criticisms. Such a person sees blinkered Hubbardites behind every positive comment on the subject, rather than honest seekers after truth. I suspect in your own way, you are not done with the recovery process yet.

            44. Aotc, Possibly you are right about the recovery process. Though when a consistently destructive cult has decimated one’s life and they spend years in the shadow of fear and confusion that all that engenders and then spend decades rebuilding their life, I’m not sure that saying their hostility is irrational. For sure, Marildi’s cult think is irrational as it is without ratio and it knows no bounds. Marildi doesn’t share anything of herself, preferring to hold her cards very close. She doesn’t share personal experiences, anecdotes of her life, neither her understandings as they would be required in star rate checkouts but rather piles on the scriptures in a never-ending river of party line spew. She resorts to flattery quickly and decisively — smelling out confirmation bias like a shark to blood. It is this cult mindset which I object to and not to a person having enjoyed being helped by any piece of Scientology or other ideology.

              What is your story with regard to your life in Scientology? Would you mind sharing or have you already elsewhere?

            45. So you will not share your story. Understood.

              Marildi is not confused. She is applying what she is supposed to when she is supposed. If you are unfamiliar with Scientology and don’t care to keep Scientology working, then I can see how you would be confused by this.

            46. Anyway, I do not know Marildi, I only know her writing. That is what I write to. Her efforts to soften people’s view of the cult of Scientology, to waylay cogent arguments exposing the inconsistencies and mental trap mindfucks of Scientology are simply noted by me and commented upon. You are welcome to your opinion. Mine is a work in progress. You have been around for a while mostly lurking but commenting here from time to time. IF you’ve been around this blog for a couple years or more, then you’ve seen my own opinion of Scientology, its core principles, axioms, and application evolve. This will probably continue.

            47. For now suffice it to say that L. Ron Hubbard was a liar and a cheater who took what is best in people and manipulated them to his own personal advantage, THAT was Hubbard’s power and he didn’t have any other powers. The prevailing attitude of independent Scientology that his inflamed and worsening “case” had to do with his inability to avail himself of the Tech that he created is nonsense. From any viewpoint outside the metes and bounds of the framework that is the Standard Tech of Scientology, these statements and attitudes are not taken seriously. Only Scientologists stuck in the tunnel created by the dogma of Scientology think Scientology matters. It is a small and shrinking group.

          2. Hi Marildi, Thank you! I’m glad you’re back. The clean heart comes from openness — less secrets. And the clear head? From turning loose of fixed viewpoints. I find there’s no harm since I can always go back to them later if I choose.

            1. Totally agree. I think even a secret, or a few secrets, are not so bad. They are related more with a cold heart than a soft one, and sometimes too much softness could allow harm. I see a secret, as a discrete behavior, like having something between hands. You could have anything in your hands, from flowers to guns. And that’s the origin of the handshake: it was for showing that your hand is empty, as you say “hello” and introduce yourself. 🙂

          3. Sometimes you’re like a butterfly…jumping from flower to flower, flying with no specific direction 🙂 Your heart, your mind, your ideas, your brilliant and sometimes aggresive posts…it’s an entire cocktail there. Funny for some, annoying for others. Marildi, you are the perfect example of the human nature. A funny enigma! 🙂 Have a nice summer! 🙂

            1. “…an entire cocktail”

              That’s one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me. 🙂

              The butterfly part was good too. I guess you mean I “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.” 😉

              Hey, before the summer is up I want to see you in that sunny yellow shirt again.

              p.s. I love you too. 🙂

            2. Dragos, speaking of cocktails, I wonder if you have ever heard the classic American song “You Go to My Head”. Or if you like classic American jazz. 🙂

            3. Are you kidding? Artie Shaw is my favourite and as female voice…the eternal Helen Forrest. Big band era was the most prolific in American music history in my opinion.

            4. dragos – you are so cool! 😎

              I gotta admit there’s a lot of big band music I don’t much care for (unless I can get up and dance to it!) but I love the stuff with a heavier jazz flavor. So here’s one for both of us (I like the instrumental in the beginning, you’ll probably prefer what follows it):

            5. Thanks! But my favourite is “They say” from 1939 I think. I was introduced to old jazz by an old man, 13 years ago, when I was at his home in a visit. I was shocked, it was an entire library there. I don’t know if he still lives, but he teached me to understand, respect and love jazz. The new jazz…well…in my opinion 90% is crap. Or maybe I’m too oldfashion?…:)

            6. dragos, thanks for that interesting background. I was wondering how a guy your age and from Romania would know American big band music! The way I came to know it was that my parents had a lot of song books with all those old songs and my sister and I would sit at the piano and sing them by the hour. In fact, that’s how I learned to sight read written music – through inspiration! 🙂

              Well, I’m old-fashioned like you – no modern jazz for me either, just classic. But the big bands didn’t actually do true jazz. That was almost all arranged rather than being improvised, which is the hallmark of jazz. But a lot of it is still great/ Okay, is this the song you meant as your favorite?

            7. Speaking of Hellen Forest, yes, it is. But speaking about ALL jazz music, my favourite is Artie Shaw’s “Begin the Beguine”. From 1938 I think.

            8. OMG, dragos, now you’re reminding me of all the old movies we used to watch on TV. I loved the dancing even more than the music! That song, “Begin the Beguine” was one that Fred Astaire and Eleanor Powell danced to. Actually, this video has relevance to the subject of power – it’s a simple example of spiritual beings who are “at cause” in the physical universe. And their high tone level is contagious :):

              For you, here’s the g-r-e-a-t Artie Shaw version of the song, the original hit he recorded in 1938 😉 (Btw. did you know that Rod Stewart and Michael Bublé are bringing back all these great old songs?)

  25. THE POWER (defined as light-year kilo-tons per microsecond) OF A THETAN IS MEASURED BY NOTHING ELSE THAN THE DISTANCE (defined as spherical spatial length) AROUND HIM IN HIS ENVIRONMENT THAT HE CAN CONTROL.

    ———————-

    The power of a person is nothing more then what he can write in policy letters and bulletins to get people to do things who are employed by the company

    Every executive of every big company does this.

    Every business owner does this.

    Jeepers. That’s all the significance there is.

    Let’s go up the bridge to realize this.

    1. Yup Gib. And that’s all there is to it. Good post. My own goal is to settle down the brouhaha over what is obvious nonsense so that I can begin again to begin from a better footing. I’ve been being in a pretty good place now for a while. That comfortable feeling is seductive so maybe it’s time for me to look a little harder. Or maybe it’s time for me to take life a little easier (but then I would hardly be moving at all! LOL)

      1. I had my own cog in writing. Hubbard added so much significance to everything. All the EP’s are over hyped significance. My last round of the objectives co-audit everybody has to now do, really nailed it. I mean 200+ hours of trying to find such significance in stupid processes, I mean one was required to run each process for a number of hours even if you got it in a few minutes. It was torture.

        It’s funny, here scientology is supposed to remove significance, and it adds a lot in the end.

  26. 2X: Not that OT ability is being explained by quantum physicists, but I see many indications that OT ability is explainable with the principles of quantum mechanics. A further indication that there was merit to exploring OT ability is that there has been much anecdotal evidence of paranormal abilities over the ages, and a lot of the anecdotes are consistent in content.

    Chris: This is such a slippery slope that I want to warn everyone within typewriter range to beware of these types of conjectures which are very colored by a desire for LRH’s OT assertions to have credence. This is trying to bond good science to superstitious nonsense giving credibility to the nonsense. Do we all want to be OT? Sure. I do. But less as I go along and not for Hubbard’s “failed purpose” reason either but for a simpler and more clear view of existence as I relate to the universe around me.

    Are there any of these OT’s? Not that I see. Is that because the Tech is flawed? Or has been misapplied? Or that the PC’s are unworthy because of overts and withholds? I don’t think so. I think the basic assumptions are utterly wrong but have the taste and appeal of traditional shamanism and so are attractive to us. Then he uses his PR tech to position his assertions against good science. We like this because it is like one of Hubbard’s “dynamic urges of existence” to be Batman.

    1. Hi Chris.
      As far as I know, there are some precedents between a guy called Regis Duthail and some NDE experiments. But that points to a field or universe of information that we can call “spiritual source”. This kind of source feeds plenty of spiritual and psychic sites as you could imagine. So, let’s forget there is a marketing about “multidimensional healing music” exploited over the Duthail’s work, and keep only with the most brief and simple facts with their most direct implications. I understand your viewpoint and what is bothering you, as I research on this subject and have a few explanations that could sound crazy, but I don’t relate everything to Scientology. For example, if Duthail demonstrates something very very very very very fantastic, he will have his merit, and it could be a revolution on related fields as quantum consciousness (the bond between quantum physics and neuroscience) and even medicine, but Scientology, will be there? YES, there will be a guy telling you that Hubbard predicted it. 😉

      And BTW: if every science has its pseudoscience, what would be Scientology and what would be its counterpart? I think that’s the question.

      Related stuff:
      http://goo.gl/bHCcev
      http://goo.gl/cvuNjh

  27. Mr Hubbard was a writer. He was an able and prolific writer. He communicated using the written word.

    Repeated reading of Hubbard’s vast quantity of writings gives one an understanding of both Hubbard the writer, and also what he has written. This is the same as repeated study of other writers, artists who paint, poets, or musicians. Familiarity with the artists work provides a greater understanding of the communication from the artist to his audience.

    The quoted statement makes perfect sense. This is Hubbard stating the obvious in a pompous manner. The statement can easily be understood, and understanding can be attested to. Searching for more significance in the statement is altering the significance.

    If I hear some clever music from a familiar musician, I might marvel at the musician’s skill. If I hear some bland music from the same musician, then I will understand the difference between clever and not clever.

    In my brief experience in Scientology, I observed many forced interpretations of Hubbard’s writings and lectures. I considered these agreed upon interpretations to be wrong. Through my experience with some of Hubbard’s vast quantity of works, I gained a confidence in my understanding of Hubbard and what he meant. It is not hard to distinguish between clever Hubbard, dumb Hubbard, angry Hubbard, and crazy Hubbard. He was all of these at different times.

    I got into lots of trouble by being stubbornly self-reliant in my study of Hubbard’s work. If I didn’t agree with a concept then that concept was not owned by me. Forced agreement does not work. Forced agreement sounds a lot like the group’s reactive bank to me.

    After a few years of my stubborn integrity, the group ejected me in a flurry of disgust.

    Word clearing is good. Misunderstood words lead to endless confusion. Once the words are cleared then understanding the meaning of the word sequence is required. Group misinterpretations of concepts sure cause a lot of confusion. What is the difference between misunderstood words and misunderstood sentences?

    1. “Through my experience with some of Hubbard’s vast quantity of works, I gained a confidence in my understanding of Hubbard and what he meant. It is not hard to distinguish between clever Hubbard, dumb Hubbard, angry Hubbard, and crazy Hubbard. He was all of these at different times…Word clearing is good. Misunderstood words lead to endless confusion”

      Very well said.

    1. freebeing:”The power of a being is its ability to postulate.”

      Sure. But that says nothing of the measure of the power. You might be able to postulate that in another 10 seconds you will postulate again. Would we call that a strong postulate, a weak postulate or an inconsequential postulate?

      I would say the ability to postulate is the beginning of the story. How strong that ability initially was, how it developed, how it was lost and how it can be recovered – that’s the story I’m interested in.

      1. 2x: I would say the ability to postulate is the beginning of the story. How strong that ability initially was, how it developed, how it was lost and how it can be recovered – that’s the story I’m interested in.

        Chris: Good post. That is also an interesting story to me. It is also an assumption that the ability was lost and that it can be recovered. That story might turn out to be different than the one told to us by the Marcabs.

      2. Life creates. Creation is limited only by consideration. As sparks of God what can’t you create? We all have a tremendous collection of reasons why we cannot create. What Scn never did was allow you to actually discard that pile of considerations. I don’t think Hubbard really wanted anyone him around more capable than himself.

        1. My thoughts regarding creation and considerations are very close to yours. Before I got into DN and SCN, I had noticed various time that my thoughts had effect on my MEST experiences, or that before something happened I knew it would happen (without any logical thinking involved). But in SCN I enchanced that. I think LRH through his explanations of a thetan’s potential grants this unlimited creativity beingness, but he also analysed the counter-part –why that doesn’t happen…considerations, case. If one only studies about case and misses the thetans potential part, he is liable to create many ‘reasons why’ he cannot create or he has to create. And I think that -depending on the student and the materials studied- can be a great liability in stydying SCN and even more DN. But in the final analysis -as per LRH too- case is creation(s) too, that’s why it can be uncreated (not created). It is explained nicely in the fundamentals of thought too.

        2. This coincides with my experience as well as my hopes and desires.

          I believe that you are right about Hubbard not wanting anyone stronger than he. My first thought on his definition of power is that he is, once again, attempting to appear superiorand mysterious. I might be wrong.

  28. I developed my own ideas many years ago about what made the e-meter react and I’ve read a few articles on the net. Ralph Hilton has dissected the e-meter thoroughly and has good info on the frequency response of the meter – which is a key parameter in assessing its operation.

    I haven’t seen an explanation (on the net) that can adequately account for either the rocket read or the rockslam, and I consider these as very telling reads. Because pure physiological explanations can’t account for these reads, I prefer my own, long-held explanation. In short, the electronic model consists of a body bulk resistance paralleled by a physiological voltage-source (chemical battery), paralleled by series resistance plus voltage-source which is the theta element. Got it so far? Three elements:( body bulk) //’l (physiological voltage) //’l (theta mass [resistance] + theta voltage) (and //’l stands for “parallel to”).

    The physiological battery component would largely be between the external surface of the body and the internal mass of the body. As such it’s effects are effectively cancelled in all but a few cases.

    What this model shows is that the total of what registers on the e-meter is a combination of the physiological responses of the body and the thoughts affecting the physiological responses.

    Consider, for instance, the bulk mass of the dead body. It would have a pretty much fixed resistance, albeit changing with body decomposition. The dead-body values were supposed to be 2 (F) and 3 (M). I don’t know if these values were ever corroborated. The point is, TA goes as high as 6 – a higher resistance – so the parallel model I’ve proposed isn’t fully correct unless the factors which drive up TA cause a physiological change in the bulk resistance of the body. I tend to think that is the case, so I hold to the initial model. EM Essentials talks about “adding to” or “subtracting from” the body resistance. This may be the same as my model if the adding and subtracting occurs in the physiological bulk, not the mental mass effect (theta effect).

    What I see occurring is that the mental response to an auditing question operates as follows:
    1) for needle reactions like SF, F, LF show a physiological response of momentarily decreased resistance. It is unlikely this is a voltage response because there is no evidence of polarization in the response.
    2) for the RS (rockslam) needle reaction, both the speed of the reaction and the slashing back and forth indicate a voltage response (polarity changes with direction of swing) in addition to any physiological response.
    3) the F/N indicates more of a voltage response that a physiological response because of the polarity changes. Alternatively the F/N may be entirely a physiological response if the thetan is fully exterior and no longer in the electronic model. I think that is far less likely.

    1. Whoa… this is close to what I have read before, from different people. Thank you for making such a complete and honest answer.

      So, if we forget everything about theta and even all about Scientology as possible:
      1. There is a fact that there is a decrease on the resistance? no matter what explanation?
      2. There is a fact that thoughts, or mental intentions, or whatever name it should get, consistently modify the resistance, thus modify the measuring over that?

      The questions become simpler.

      1. Petteko: ” 1. There is a fact that there is a decrease on the resistance? no matter what explanation?”

        The way I see it is the action of thought by the thetan causes an electrical response over the brain which stimulates the physiological resistance change. BUT, with certain needle manifestations, there is also appears to be a voltage-electrical component. How, exactly this component might be added in is a debatable question. If we consider that the response can be seen whether we use two cans, a solo pair or even finger electrodes, then we see that the response is fairly uniform across the body and may be in the form of a field. The field idea would need further examination as a field effect implies differential voltage over a distance, and as I said, the e-meter response is similar regardless of the electrode (can) configuration. If it was a simple field, a field-differential effect should be apparent in the 2-can configuration but not necessarily solo cans or finger electrodes.

        The main idea I was trying to get across is that, for certain needle phenomena, there is strong evidence of a voltage response as well as a resistance response.

    2. “1) for needle reactions like SF, F, LF show a physiological response of momentarily decreased resistance. It is unlikely this is a voltage response because there is no evidence of polarization in the response.”

      What about the explanation in UEM, as regards “Life’s NOW reaction to applied force”. That would include a pinch or the force of a facsimile. And woudn’t that a;; go along with the ability of a thetan to postulate particles in space, i.e. to create energy?

      Also, in E-meter Essentials, there’s a description of the ability to “imagine” seeing a better connection between someone’s hands and the E-meter cans and as a result getting a surge on the needle. That again would be live, PT creation of energy, it would seem.

      1. Here’s the exact quote from E-meter Essentials:

        “You can also make a high sensitivity set needle jump by ‘imagining’ the preclear’s hands being better connected to the cans and ‘seeing’ a whitish glow between cans and finger tips. That is, if you’re in good shape.”

        Have you ever seen anybody do this?

        1. I don’t know if anyone tried that, but that sounds like if the auditor will be inducing his own energy altering the results, doesn’t seems appropriate. It will get more sense if the pc agrees with the auditor to some kind of “inducing imaginery” and the pc flows some intention to the cans.

          1. Oh wow, I didn’t meant to give the impression that this is something that is done in an auditing session! Not at all. It’s simply something that can be done that demonstrates certain things about both the E-meter and the ability of a thetan – which is the ability to postulate particles in space. The definition of energy is “postulated particles in space”.

            1. Marildi: It’s simply something that can be done that demonstrates certain things about both the E-meter and the ability of a thetan – which is the ability to postulate particles in space. The definition of energy is “postulated particles in space”.

              Chris: This is a demonstration of a bogus assertion backed up by arbitrary hand pressure. It is shamanism backed up by wishful thinking under the cloak of pseudo science backed up by an ohm-meter.

        2. At high sensitivity, the needle can jump with no cognizant change in hand pressure. Have you ever seen this? At seance, ouija boards jump due to disembodied spirits manifesting in the room. Have you ever seen this?

          1. The theories vary as to why ouija boards “jump”. What’s the point you want to make?

          2. LOL

            That’s why I don’t like how Scientology has contributed to help and solve all the parapsychology issues! 😀

            1. True. Scientology has as much interest in parapsychology issues as a gypsy fortune teller has had in actually telling the future. The underlying purpose is other than advertised.

          1. Oh sure, the key is to do push-ups, deep knee bends and jumping jacks, 3 sets of ten repetitions each, and of course eat right, and lay off the trans fats 🙂

      2. Marildi: “Also, in E-meter Essentials, there’s a description of the ability to “imagine” seeing a better connection between someone’s…”

        I would expect that could be done. It simply indicates a field being created at a distance. This could not be created without a person holding the meter simply due to the way the electronics of the e-meter work, but with different electronics one should be able to create the same effect.

        1. Here’s the full context of that section in E-meter Essentials, which may be of further interest to you students of physics for debate or discussion:
          ———————————–
          53. You can also make a high sensitivity set needle jump by ‘imagining’ the preclear’s hands being better connected to the cans and ‘seeing’ a whitish glow between cans and finger tips. That is, if you’re in good shape. You can also do it by ‘seeing’ this glow in the area of a preclear’s old injury. That is the extent of your influencing the preclear and the meter reading outside of auditing.

          54. You can also (after you’ve been talking to, not processing, a preclear) set the meter on yourself, then give the cans to the preclear and he or she will read the same adjustments for a few moments.

          55. These are all more or less Body Reactions. They get in your road as to movement and sneezes and they don’t affect your processing as to ‘cross currents’ between auditor and preclear. So bear up under them and skip them. They’re not important once you know what they are.
          ————————————

          1. Possibly related to the idea in #54 above was something I saw on a website for the book *The Magic of Quantum*. On one page of that site there are two kirlian photographs. The first is of the fingers of 2 people thinking negative thoughts about each other. The second is of the same 2 people thinking positive thoughts about each other, and in that second one the “energy” around each finger overlaps with the energy around the other. It’s about midway down the page: http://www.themagicofquantum.com/review.php

            One could extrapolate from the E-meter Essentials reference and the kirlian photographs in the link above that when two people are in comm, their energies combine in some way, and to some extent. That seems quite real to me, probably even if the people at a distance from each other.

      3. Marildi: What about the explanation in UEM, as regards “Life’s NOW reaction to applied force”. That would include a pinch or the force of a facsimile. And woudn’t that a; go along with the ability of a thetan to postulate particles in space, i.e. to create energy?

        Chris: Not necessary. There is plenty of energy present without needing to resort to creating energy to have a needle reaction. Example: A child’s toy balloon. It is blown up and tied. Holding it in one’s hand and squeezing causes the balloon to bulge out away from the gripping hand. No air was created.

        1. Chris: “Not necessary. There is plenty of energy present without needing to resort to creating energy to have a needle reaction.”

          We’re talking about a read occurring right when someone gets pinched as well as each time the person recalls the moment of the pinch. Do you have any explanation for how the “energy present” would cause the reads to occur right at those moments?

  29. Re: Isene, 2013-08-06 @ 10:43: “you [marildi] are under moderation so that I can catch all your questions and” … “respond”

    Obviously, the blog owner has the right to put on moderation whoever he wants, whenever he wants. However I find hard to believe that a techie like Geir needs to resort to moderation in order to track a commenter.

    It looks like using WordPress APIs, he could easily make an app for tracking whatever kinds of comments he wants. http://developer.wordpress.com/

    Example using WordPress APIs:

    $response = file_get_contents(… after … [callback] …)
    http://developer.wordpress.com/docs/api/1/get/sites/%24site/comments/
    ◦ Query parameter “after”: stored global variable: last date+time this app was run, etc.
    ◦ Response Parameters: Has an array of comment objects.
    ◦ Filtering by commenter(s), etc., could be done accessing the comment objects with a script implemented as a callback query parameter, or a script run after the query (e.g.: $response = my_filter($response) ).
    ◦ Obviously, this app could easily include an optional reply using the WordPress API “Create a Comment as a reply to another Comment” http://developer.wordpress.com/docs/api/1/post/sites/%24site/comments/%24comment_ID/replies/new/

    Of course, the above may not be needed if WordPress has a ready to use plug-in for tracking commenter(s). http://wordpress.org/plugins/tags/comments

    http://tinyurl.com/Mindfull-Enlightenment

    1. Nice try, my dear Ferenc. But there’s a saying about immovable objects. They’re called hard noses, I think. It might even be a physics law. 😀

      1. marildi: “Nice try, my dear Ferenc.”

        Marildiv, I wasn’t trying to change his mind. I just found very funny his excuse for moderating you, and I was pointing out the inconsistency of his argument.

        1. Ferenc, shhhh… I’m not supposed to talk about it. I think the next gradient is Permanent Moderation extended to next lifetime ❗

    1. It’s not off topic because it reminds us that our knowledge is abstracted modeling. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, “The map is not the terrain.” This helps us stay mindful to use the tools that work for us but to beware of dogmas and cling lightly to our truths so that we can be ready whenever the next revelation comes.

    2. One thing that I enjoyed a about the article is how the “increasing mass theory” dovetails with my own notion that space-time itself is the original elastic singularity which in gathering itself together is the source of both the condensate known as matter and the energy known as gravity.

      post Valkov!

    3. Iamvalkov, 2013-08-08 @ 02:36: “This may be way off topic, but for all you Boson-riding Fractal-loving Quantum Cowboys” …
      Chris Thompson, 2013-08-08 @ 03:05: “It’s not off topic” …

      Speaking about Boson-riding Fractal-loving Quantum Cowboys, for the Quantum loving people of this blog, here is an article, A New Quantum Theoretical Framework For Parapsychology, page 3 in The European Journal Of Parapsychology, Volume 23.1, 2008.
      http://ejp.wyrdwise.com/EJP%20v23-1.pdf (3.8 mb)

    4. Hey Val, I vaguely remember you being in a discussion about bosons way back and I think the topic was whether or not two particles could occupy the same space. I thought of that the recently when I came across a piece of data that tells us LRH did know that it was possible:

      “Agreement with the physical universe brings about the consideration on the part of the preclear that two things cannot occupy the same space. It is this basic rule which keeps the physical universe ‘stretched’. It is not, however, true that two things cannot occupy the same space, and it is particularly untrue when the two things are an object and a thetan, since a thetan can occupy the space any object is occupying.” (COHA)

        1. The point was did he or did he not say that two particles could occupy the same space. And I’m pretty sure YOU were the one saying LRH said they couldn’t. So the point now isn’t that LRH was right – it’s that you were wrong. 😀

          1. Notice what he says; he says there is indeed a basic agreement that no two particles can occupy the same space but that a thetan (not a particle nor a thing) can occupy the same space as a particle or space. The axioms are clear on this. Or do you claim that the above points to a fundamental inconsistency in the very foundations of Scientology?

            1. Yes, he said it was a basic agreement. And then he said that “It is not, however, true that two things cannot occupy the same space…” I get that there is agreement and there is what’s true. The Axioms are agreements. Nothing inconsistent there that I can see.

              But how did you mean that bosons do violate the above statement?

            2. Bosons can occupy the same space thus rendering the axiom untrue. Bisins show that LRH’s claim for such a basic agreement is false.

            3. isene: “Bosons can occupy the same space thus rendering the axiom untrue. Bisins show that LRH’s claim for such a basic agreement is false.”

              Different types of bosons may do that, or they may combine to make a new, different boson.

              Consider waves: if two waves of the same wavelength are going in the same direction and have the same phase, they will add maximally; if they are 180 degrees out of phase they will subtract maximally.

              Bosons are just multi-dimensional wave-sets. Vector algebra could be applied to an interaction between any two bosons. The result may be stable or unstable. Certain dimensions could also be so misaligned, or the magnitudes of dimensions so different that the bosons would not be able to interact (beams of light crossing each other at right angles do not interact.)

            4. 2X: ” . . . Bosons are just multi-dimensional wave-sets. . . .”

              Chris: Referring to multi-dimensional wave-sets as “just” is truly greatness!

          1. Geir
            You have never written about
            1. how did your perception change after finishing OT8?

            In most (not all) ‘Clears’ and ‘OTs’ I met I felt pure attention and love towards life…people, things…
            2. did you feel that after completing any level? /do you feel that now?

            Based on what you write, you are technically oriented (geek, nerd)
            3. can you just ‘be’ and get ‘knowingness’ without using the analytical mind (analyzing data, drawing conclusions)….much like just being, observing and kind
            of intuitively know and act?

            Earlier there were exchanges about ‘entities’. St David Lawrence writes that OTs get into ‘difficulties’ after auditing out all of them when they ‘go out into life’.
            4. Do you find any truth in it?

    1. ‘ the meditator is entirely absent’ (Krishnamurti) Yes, this is the ‘no sense of ME’ just awareness and a Flow….yet, there can be thoughts, this awareness can either ‘watch’ them go, or, get ‘associated’ with one.

      1. E. Tolle is a fine teacher and one to not miss, on a personal path along with others, I’d say. His talks reinforce or remind one of what you know and can be very helpful when needed.

        1. Yes, ‘along with others’. Any being who one encounters is a ‘teacher’ for us to recognize truth – the one source of Life. Some live that truth, some live and take up the role of a teacher or an auditor (Ron wrote about it). By being aware of Tolle’s silent Presence and his worded talks one is able to recognize both the source and the manifestations very clearly and easily – that is why he is a good teacher.

  30. I think to define (spiritual) power it depends on a personal viewpoint. If you are rich you have a lot power. That’s one viewpoint. Or: your ability to live in harmony is power. Or: your ability to let go defines power. Or: the more people you killed in a war the more powerful you will be seen ….. or: the more people you can control the more powerful you are …. depends on a viewpoint. I personally prefer for right now: your ability to live in harmony with everything else and finally to be it is power.

    1. Philosophically, power can be subjective to many considerations as you say. Physically, power is a unit of measure. An individual has the power of one but in a colony that power is multiplied by each of the members. If we want to say that the queen bee as an individual insect has the power of the entire colony, I believe that is not correct — neither physically nor philosophically. Leaders are a part of the whole. Individual OTs in the sense of Superman do not exist. In Batman, we see some get close in cleverness, money, and athletic prowess.

      1. Yes, exactly! And I would even say that power itself is an illusion. (not the physical power of e.g. a train dragging with power something – well, maybe even that is an illusion 😉 )

  31. On the subject of the meter, how it works, what it shows, I’ll share this anecdote and leave it for you to consider:

    Back in 1981, when I was relatively new to doing metered auditing, and had recently completed my NED (New Era Dianetics) internship (I have since come to recognize several non-optimum issues with NED, and have reworked a much simpler and more direct and effective method of processing incidents), I was in session, running NED on a PC, and waiting for what seemd like a long time to get some kind of verbal response from the PC after I had given the command to move forward through the incident. Being not very experienced, I began to be concerned that maybe something was wrong, and maybe the PC wasn’t moving through the incident, and so I “squirreled”: I mentally, not verbally, intended the command I had given to the PC- and got the exact same instant fall of the needle as when I verbally gave the command! I tried it twice more, and the same thing happened; this would prove to be very useful information later on, when listening to one of John Mcmasters’ lectures on Power Processing, where he was making the point that the auditor should not be silently evaluating, intending, or thinking anything while the PC is running the process, but instead just simply be there with the PC and experience the shared presence, that all that mental junk takes away from the process. That’s how I train people to “do TR’s”- not exactly as per Hubbard’s instructions, no “flunk for blinking”, or “hold the body still”, and very effective. One couple was preparing to co-audit, I supervised them to simply be there and experience the other’s presence without resisting, and if or when they fidgeted or showed signs of doing anything, I simply asked them what was happening, and then instructed them to “return to” experiencing the other’s presence. One thing that happened was that the wife experienced the result of feeling left-handed like her husband (!)

  32. This is not meant to slight anyone, but all the group banter about the issues between Marildi and Geir never should have been presented to the group, it has nothing to do with any of the discussion topics, and it is not for anyone else to resolve, well meaning as everyone obviously is. Other factors become important to people when their disagreement becomes a public matter. If Marildi and/or Geir want to resolve the matter, that can be accomplished most easily by private, direct, live communication- Skype would be best, phone would work, so would instant messaging, these being listed in descending order of efficiency, as voice intonations and facial expressions and gestures are part of the fullness of communicating. In my own internet forums, I’d have pulled the plug on the public airing of the matter at the very start. Its a hijacking of attention from what this site was created for. (All of this is, of course, merely my viewpoint) 🙂

    1. Good point. An original point of mine was to show in public where my line of tolerance goes on my blog – since I do not present any “rules of conduct” here, cases such as these present a guide for the contributors here.

  33. Petteko, I didn’t follow everything you wrote but I can tell you this – I felt you. You were earnest and I really liked that. One thing I got for sure was this:

    “My comment now looks weird and inappropriate, if you associate all the Marildi’s comments that went out of moderation. So, you have to check carefully the ‘time line’ of each to make sense.”

    I understand! That’s one of the main problems with being on moderation. The time line is out, so the comment no longer makes that much sense by the time it gets posted. It’s different on a blog like Marty’s because everyone is moderated and the timing is the same for everybody. Plus, he moderates frequently.

    I got your point about group think also. You’re probably too new here to know how much I’ve teased some people about treating Geir like their guru, agreeing with pretty much everything he says – and making sure to post something negative to any comment that’s in DISagreement with what he says. Geir has the ability to elicit that from people. Most of them seem to have a crush on him, even the men(!), and they want to make him right.

    Maybe in part it’s because he’s an “OT 8” – that has high interest. It’s the reason I first checked out his blog, myself. Or maybe it’s just his personal POWER – the topic of this thread (LOL, I’m on topic!) It’s an elusive thing that isn’t necessarily describable in physical universe terms, IMO. But for me, after a while there were too many things I didn’t agree with as regards Scientology and I started being more and more up front about it – too much so, as it turned out. 😦

    Geir, it’s funny how you say I haven’t changed a bit and yet what I just wrote above is one obvious way that I have. 😉 And there are other ways too, which you really shouldn’t deny because it’s your blog that gets the credit for my broader perspective. And although, understandably, you want to draw a line as to when and how much derailing you’ll allow, one of the best things about this place is that you do allow the conversation to go almost anywhere interest takes it.

    Petteko, I honestly didn’t mean to be hard on you. I had no real feeling of animosity at all. But yes, it did seem to me that you were defending Geir from the commenters who disagreed with him. Isn’t it funny how things feel differently to each of us when the comm is directed to us personally! People are sensitive and Dexter is probably right that we shouldn’t get into personal things.

    Dexter, I remember how you responded one time when Oracle said some things that you felt misrepresented you. You did just like I did and went to great lengths to state your own side of the story. These things are like a wrong indication! And that means they have a lot of BPC, which I think you and I can both attest to. Anyway, it’s a good question you proposed as to whether such topics should be allowed – it’s sort of a double edged sword. On the one hand it’s risky business; on the other, a lot of lessons can be learned. I can attest to that too!

    Petteko I know you aren’t Chewbacca. And there was no special significance to my use of the word “calculations” either – it just had to do with the comparative sizes of comments. I will admit I was being defensive and it seems you admit that you too have been defensive. But you are okay in my book. Really. Btw, I’m not a Scorpio, I’m a Virgo. What does that tell you about me? And you better put it in a nice way! 😛 🙂

    1. Petteko: “My comment now looks weird and inappropriate, if you associate all the Marildi’s comments that went out of moderation. So, you have to check carefully the ‘time line’ of each to make sense.”
      Marildiv: “I understand! That’s one of the main problems with being on moderation. The time line is out, so the comment no longer makes that much sense by the time it gets posted.”

      If moderation would be the cause of the time line out, then all comments’ levels would have this problem. (The comments levels correspond to indentation levels). However, this problem only occurs on the last (in this case the 6th) level, which is the maximum level which this blog template allows.

      WordPress database stores all the comments of a blog post as a logical tree keeping track of all the levels regardless of any level number limitation of the web page template being used.

      The time line out in the last level is because some people are posting comments replaying to e-mail notifications of comments whose level is equal or greater than the template’s maximum (in this case 6th) level, thus creating, in the WordPress database, comments with levels greater than the maximum allowed in the template. When WordPress software renders the comments with levels greater than the maximum, it shows them immediately after the comment to which it’s replaying, but not showing the real indentation level, creating a visual time line out.

      Marildiv: “some people” … “treating Geir like their guru, agreeing with pretty much everything he says” … “Most of them seem to have a crush on him, even the men(!), and they want to make him right.”

      It reminds me an article I have read recently:
      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57597372/dogs-yawn-more-often-in-response-to-owners-yawns

      1. Hi Ferenc,

        I get what you’re saying and I’ve observed what you describe as to how the comments line up in that last level – which, as you say, can be misleading with regard to any post. Probably the term “time line” didn’t describe the point very well. I’m not sure what Petteko meant, but what I meant to say is that by the time my moderated comment is posted, there may have been several other comments that had not yet been posted and which I had not seen when I posted mine. And thus mine may seem strange because I was missing the additional points that got communicated after mine. Maybe I should have used the term “stale dated”. That seems to indicate. 😉

        As for that article you linked,,,it made me yawn. 😀 (I just can’t resist a good joke! But you know what I think of you, Ferenc the Great. ;))

    2. I’m responding by enumeration, as it deserves it:

      1. You respond a comment that was not intended for you, and grabbed and quoted an expression that was not intended for you. It would be clearer if I’d said that one could serve the ego of somebody that’s no longer alive, like Hubbard.

      2. I received your flow directed to me, (as I’m a psychic) 😀 and I assumed a beingess in response to that. (for reading between lines). It seems it worked out more than I expected.

      3. An example of Chewbacca Defense would be the following:

      A.- comment showing some criticism and/or direct or indirect accusations to Scientology or Hubbard- [no matter what was the point on topic, if it feels like a wrong behavior, suppressive, challenging belief and/or disrespectful against belief, then must call Chewbacca]

      B.- Defensive comments to counter and balance the perceived evil intentions [this may be viewed and felt as nitpicking, as the defender will try to look at the intentions in full detail]

      C.- The commenter says something wrong or get confused, he could contradict himself into the derailed chain of thought that is opt-out [the commenter start to losing his patience and may commit mistakes]

      D.- If it doesn’t fit, Scientology must get acquitted. [Chewbacca defense accomplished]

      I’ve seen this defenses before in various contexts related to Scientology, some styles could be labeled as some form of trolling, and rely on the tolerance bar of the moderator more than the rigid definition of troll. I’m not sure if this was used on this blog. Do you? That’s why I explain this publicly, so the commenters could look and decide by themselves, because I believe they are not a flock.

      4. I’m not sure what kind of people read or follows this blog, I can’t generalize. I came here from “far far away land” because of a series of unfortunate events that leads to see statements by an OT-8, conclusions that I’d already knew by my researches. And I’m following this blog (as many others) because of the commenters, since there’s plenty of information to work with and even to disseminate. Like all the materials that are aviable at:
      http://www.stss.nl/en

      Everyone should have the references aviable as you do. But not many persons have the skill to know how to look for the exact reference among all, with the index reading and codes. But it’s sensible to post Bible’s versicles publicly if we are discussing Bible’s writers and their god inspiration. I know that is exegesis. And again, I’m not sure if the purpose of this blog is to do that (a longwinded exegesis).

      I’m more willing to discuss advanced HCOB (and maybe all green and red volumes) like the following, instead of the simple controversial popular sayings of Hubbard:
      – Triple Ruds Long Duration. BTB 1 Dec 71RBII
      – PTS RUNDOWN
      – ARCU CDEINR

      5.- “Geir has the ability to elicit that from people. Most of them seem to have a crush on him, even the men(!), and they want to make him right.”

      I find that very offensive, not to me since it’s not directed to me, but it’s offensive. I’m new on this blog, but the things I have seen upon moderations and virtual attitudes are so old. I find your answer very “entheta”, and with indirect displacement. Here you are saying what’s bothering you. Here is the truth.
      So, you have an ARC break with Geir. Did you tried, as scientologist, running it down as for what it is? Did you tried to repair that as for what it is or should be? Have you a misdone carmming upon this?

      i.e:
      HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MARCH 1965

      1. Ask what the Pc is upset about.
      2. Ask who thought so.
      3. Repeat the generality the Pc used and
      4. Ask for the singular.
      5. Keep 3 and 4 going until the Pc is happy.

      Level VI ARC Breaks
      AN ARC BREAK OCCURS BECAUSE OF A
      GENERALITY OR A NOT THERE.

      HCO BULLETIN OF 11 AUGUST 1978

      1. “Do you have an ARC break?”
      2. If there is an ARC break, get the data on it briefly.
      3. Find out by assessment which point the ARC break occurred on: “Was that a break in Affinity?Reality?Communication?Understanding?” You assess it once and get the read (or the largest read) on, say, communication.
      4. Check it with the pc: “Was that a break in (communication)? If he says no, rehandle. If yes, let him tell you about it if he wishes. Then give it to him by indicating it, i.e. “I’d like to indicate that was a break in communication.”
      PROVIDED THE RIGHT ITEM HAS BEEN GOTTEN, the pc will
      brighten up, even if ever so slightly, on the very first assessment.
      etc…

      Here I put a link for people who may get lost on references and slangs:
      http://freezoneearth.org/clearbird/clearbird2004/sub2/class3/003bpc.htm

      Here, the 5th point, is that I’m new, I have to read as much as possible from your interactions with others and others blogs, and so far I see arc break over arc break over arc break with affinity as a starting point. And no attempt for repairing that and make it clear “publickly”, as it is how you desired to state the case. I said this because anybody may want to handle his originations in serious session, not in a blog, searching for motivators. Even if some blog or forum is railed on criticism and unfair treatment of Scientology “useful” things, scientologists always can practice freely about what they want, no matter if some public doesn’t believes them. So, why the fixation on the “antagonist flow”? 🙂

      6.- Geir is only a human. It’s not perfect. I guess that’s not in discussion. OT 8 is a label that serves only inside the Scientology world, and for the “wog world” it means he is not any dumbshit related to the subject. He may be wrong on something, but it is true that sometimes where he put the bullet on specifics (regarding pure SCN or Hubbard), there wasn’t any valid answer to catch that, and there are so many questions without answer yet. Not from him, neither from us. There are questions that remain unanswered. I appreciate the doubt, but I don’t like it to stay forever. Some answers originates more doubts that anything else. Wherever it would be a subject of interpretations, there will be confusion and battles. And subjects of interpretation are ambiguous in regarding confirmation bias. People just take what fits with oneself. If people change, other things may just fit and some other won’t, by incompatible issues. The same for data issues, the same for personal alignment of people in that “influencer-follower” phenomenon. Many people are aligned with Hubbard, those people will be outpoints from people that are on the farest corner of the galaxy regarding Hubbard’s viewpoint and their personal affinity.

      7.- “it did seem to me that you were defending Geir from the commenters who disagreed with him”

      I may have been “defensive” when I was communicating with people (that do not responded), deconstructing some kind of weird support on your flow (as a starting mob and putting you on hot topic). May be it was just offensive against what I see as absurd. If I find any absurd comment by Geir, I will make a cause upon that. And, of course, I can’t end this by not making any indirect claims such as: I’m not the one with the hidden agenda or hidden unclear concerns, I’m just a recent commenter sharing my viewpoint with people that may understand it. I’m not a guru and not following gurues (I hate them, I have a personal case with that), I’m more like the “reductio ad absurdum” behavior.

      That you are Virgo, that doesn’t tell more of what an average site would say related to the subject. That just fits, my question was in the outpoints list. But, I’m not leaving without saying something about it, so, that tells me that you could be a very rational person who may suffer from rationalization of everything, as a controlling personality, as well as being kind and manipulative. It’s not the best sign regarding this topic. (of course I’m putting only the obscure points). 🙂

      1. Petteko, with regard to your objection to my responding to your earlier comment, according to the email notification I got your comment was actually in reply to a post of mine, which was my main reason for responding to it.

        Also, I’m surprised that you would ask if I tried to repair the ARC break with Geir and said that there was “no attempt for repairing that and make it clear ‘publickly’, as it is how you desired to state the case.” I posted quite a few comments “publicly”, trying to understand the situation and to repair it. Then it was suggested that the comm cycle between me and Geir would be better to take place privately, via email. Did you not see my comment where I said I was going to email him about it?

        As regards what I said about posters having “a crush” on Geir and wanting to make him right, you may see that as “very offensive” but that has been my observation – as well as my own experience in the past, to a large degree – up until I decided to post my own views whether or not they were in agreement with Geir’s. Ferenc posted an article about a study that concluded it is a natural social response to mimic someone you like, so neither you nor I should be surprised or deny that posters sometimes do that.

        However, I don’t think it is the purpose of most blogs to simply be sociable. On the other hand, as I commented earlier, I think it would be an improvement on this (or any blog) if the posters tried to express their disagreements in a more social way. That would mean to post a viewpoint that may disagree with another’s but is expressed without invalidating the other person’s idea and without making personal remarks about him or her. I have certainly not always done that and I think the same could be said of you, so there should be no “pot calling the kettle black” on the part of either of us. 🙂

  34. ‘most of them seem to have a crush on him, even the men’
    In my view, it is not ‘personal’, yet can display itself as ‘personal’, it is ‘truth’ (which is revealed to Geir) and it is the natural core of our being. It is very well explained
    and can be felt in this video.

    It answers a lot of questions.

    Finally, this is the one in which Adya talks about the phenomena, pitfalls etc. along the ‘road of full enlightenment’….clear mind, thoughts, energy manifestations, ego, body manifestations, emotions….any of you interested, you will find it on You Tube.
    I find it from experience one of the best ever ‘collection of pointers’. In plain English.

    http://www.adyashanti.org/index.php?file=productdetail&iprod_id=302

    1. Marianne, great videos! I agree with your phrase “collection of pointers”. And I think I’ve used the word “pointers” too, with the same idea.Thanks for posting all this food for thought. 😉

      1. Thanks! ‘I’ve used the word “pointers” too, with the same idea.’ Yes, we have been in sync several times! This word is used by Tolle, Gangaji…several other ‘awakened’ beings. I also love the ‘backround silence’…life-static, that is!

        1. Yes, it’s like the Laughing Buddha’s “finger pointing to the moon”. The important thing isn’t to keep one’s eyes on the finger but to look in the direction it’s pointing to. The same idea is true as regars “the map is not the territory” – but it does guide one to the territory. This is a valid route to truth in addition to direct perception. But of course the pointers themselves do lead to direct perception.

          (Note that my replies to you may take up to hours before they are moderated, especially at this late time of day. And even then I don’t think you get an email notification, so just refresh the page now and then to check it out.)

  35. Marildi: “. . . I’ve teased some people about treating Geir like their guru, agreeing with pretty much everything he says – and making sure to post something negative to any comment that’s in DISagreement with what he says. Geir has the ability to elicit that from people. Most of them seem to have a crush on him, even the men(!), and they want to make him right.”

    Chris: It is your arguing which needs improvement. As I’ve written many times, our discussions are not contests to be won but you treat them that way. Geir’s charm has nothing to do with the insufficient quality of your arguments toward softening people’s negative opinion of the cult of Scientology. It is your stultifying copying and pasting of reams of Hubbard’s scriptures which worsen opinions of Scientology as it has mine. I write to your writing. Aside from your admission to saying that Geir is my guru, what you wrote above is not true.

    1. Honestly, as soon as I see in a post any disparaging of another, or their viewpoint, I lose interest and move on. I’ve pretty much had my fill of such things watching “independent” Scientologists flame at each other on other forums, in embarrassing ser fac contests.
      Someone sees something stated they they disagree with, and the implanted “I must counteract this false PR, or else everyone will believe it, and all will be lost!” delusion kicks in.
      How about, if someone expresses their viewpoint and it doesn’t happen to align with yours (God forbid), if instead of criticizing the person, or their statement, you simply say, “Gotcha; I have a different take, I see it this way…” and everybody accepts and allows everybody else to have a viewpoint and express it, without jumping all over it.
      Some people only trust and want “KSW Scientology”? Fine- its not like nobody ever got anything good out of it. Somebody thinks everything connected with Hubbard is a calculated scam? OK- nobody’s going to burn in hell eternally for the lack of experiencing any part of Scientology, and there are enough true horror stories connected with it to scare almost anyone away. I myself don’t lose any sleep over what anyone else thinks or says about it, and for me, I find many elements useful when examined and applied as one sees fit individually.
      Also, when I create a forum, I create it for a purpose, and while I believe in allowing a good amount of lattitude, I retain the right to curb the actions of people that hijack, dilute or counter that purpose.
      There was one person in my “Free Scientologist” group, who is a “KSW standard tech zealot”; I felt there was value in that voice being heard, expressing useful positives that might otherwise be dismissed merely because it was in alignment with Hubbard’s fascist construct (yeah, I do have an opinion- but I also disagree with wholly dismissing everything anyone has had to offer because of what they’ve done that I cannot support); however, this person only wanted to shout down what everyone else was doing, for example: “Why try to change or advance the tech, why would anyone want to reinvent the wheel?” (well, how about because there has never been, and will never be, any field of endeavor that dead-ends in absolute perfection, so anything can be improved). This person privately messaged myself and other group members to call us “egotistical” and “delusional”, and to “warn” us against trusting each other. I directly asked this person to contribute what he considered the POSITIVES of his approach for consideration, but this “Class VIII standard tech specialist” never offered a single “here’s something very good and useful from an HCOB”, they just attacked what others were doing. I removed him from the group, probably months after I should have. None of us are so Godlike that our patience is unlimited when another persists in self-indulgently blunting the purpose behind what we endeavor to create and share. I removed one person because too many times, when someone started a thread on a specific and relevant topic, this person would consistently pour water on the direction of the conversation by opining that the words that were being used could be taken a variety of other ways; they just couldn’t allow an existing train of thought to stay on the tracks.
      I guess my point, overall, is that in any forum that has any sort of focus, one ought to be considerate of that focus, and of others’ freedom to have and express their own view, within the parameters of that focus.

        1. ‘As for the purpose of this blog… who knows?’ Yes… ‘explorer of free will’. Isn’t the bottom line Free Will (Life) itself? Whether ‘you’ (‘Geir’, your ‘personality’) want it or
          not, the ‘truth’ you have realized is in operation. IT is Power. And when you say ‘me’,
          back to the me, for me it is that realization which Adya explains as ‘closing the gap’.

        2. Geir, I agree with Dexter as regards the point of disparaging others or their views, or getting personal in a derogatory way. Maybe this is a turning point in your blog, where posters can be expected to do a better job at stating their viewpoints without doing any of those things – at least not to any significant degree since to expect 100% perfection isn’t very real. In other words, judgement and tolerance should also be exercised in pointing this out to them so as to not focus too much on this area and get obsessive about it.. There should be a certain amount tolerance even for intolerance, and an issue should be made of it only if the person has overstepped the bounds a little too much. I would agree with what seems to be a reluctance on your part to making any hard and fast rules for the blog.

          In fact, it’s not that I’m saying you should be the one who has to police intolerance and personal remarks but that it could be “policed” by the posters themselves – and, as I say, that too would be done in a way that does the least amount of disparaging and getting personal in a unnecessarily derogatory way.

          1. On another subject, I wanted to note that last night (this morning, your time) I posted replies to both dragos and marianne but I don’t know if they know about it since moderated comments don’t always have email notifications sent out. Please ack this comment so they’ll get the notification of your ack and then know that I did acknowledge their comments to me. Thanks.

            1. I should have included that the reply I made to aotc just a bit ago may not have been seen by him either, so please ack this as well. Sorry! 🙂

            2. I have done lots and lots of admitting on this blog the last three years – from my weaknesses to my gains in Scientology to where I was wrong about Scientology to my preferences in both that and other parts in life, etc. etc. Nothing finally about this.

            3. That’s true. I admit it! 🙂 I was just razzing you.

              Btw, what did you think of the comment I just posted above, related to Dexter’s post?

            4. No, not at all! I didn’t mean we can’t kid around and have fun. And if it isn’t clear that it was kidding (as what apparently happened just now) then the person can always clarify that it was. We don’t have to be uptight about it like walking on eggs.

            5. Perfect selection, marianne! You have so many songs and other great videos in your repertoire that are always very apropos. Amazing. 🙂

              Btw, please tell me if you got an email notification of this post. I’m not totally sure about it and thus don’t know whether my replies are seen or not.

            6. marildi
              ‘you have so many songs and other great videos in repertoire that are always
              apropos’. Thanks.
              The truth is, I haven’t heard several of the songs before – just by ‘intuition’, sometimes after a little searching on the Net, sometimes a word comes to mind and there is the music. As for the other videos, I listened to a lot last summer, so I easily remember them. I think you are also very good at picking the right videos!
              I didn’t chose the email notification because I want to keep my mails as low as possible. I am even thinking about using the Net less and less.

            7. I get it. So it seems that your intuition gets the credit. 😉

              I understand about not wanting so many emails. In that case, it seems you already have a solution for getting my replies. Cool.

            8. marildi
              I didn’t say I didn’t want ‘so many’ emails. I just don’t want any ‘extra’ mails (notifications). I saw its use and logic for a week when I started blogging but decided
              to separate the two…I can fast check and read replies on the blog itself.

            9. Marianne, my wording may not have expressed it but I got what you meant exactly the way you just wrote, including that you have your own system of checking for new comments. That’s good.

      1. Hi Dexter, I have seen exactly what you wrote about. It was so embarrassing seeing OTs VII and Tech Supervisors acting with such disrespectful to others. And even for the jerks’ winner, there was a tolerance line to him too, in a comprehensive way. For example, the tension and striving to wich he was attached, and the enforcement he was playing because of what he believed it was right. As for me, the tolerance line ends with actions. All the tolerance itself lie upon actions. You have not more or less tolerance to abstract viewpoints and beliefs. It’s always related to actions. Even in the most fundamental and harmful intolerance there is action, the “existence action” and then a serie of motivators that the target group would be doing (Jews).
        If I see injustice, I will react like intolerance. A gradient of intolerance in regard of actions applied and subjective interpretations upon that.

        I will put it in kind of tricky way:

        If Scientology indoctrinate us to “always attack”, and then we found that Scientology as a whole it’s harmfull, is based on lies, or have betrayed us… what would be our reaction regarding Scientology?

        There would be too many examples like that. The point is that scientologists themselves destroy Scientology and create its fame, not enemies from outside. And, if there was enemies from outside (I’m sure there are), they will push scientologists and let them crashing by themselves. That’s would be the effortless law.
        And for me, in personal ways, all of those scientologists were disappointments, as you could get disappointment anywhere with anything. One thing I have learned is that to feel disappointment, you have to buy an illusion first. And that’s relies on you. So, about tolerance, if an agenda is selling illusions, would you have enough tolerance on that?
        This topic has to do and makes a lot of sense regarding delivering fraud and marketing products. There is power on that. A lot. And there are certain actions, not theories and opinions.

        1. Hi Petteko, thanks for your thoughtful reply. Here, at least for me, is the simplicity behind such behavior:

          When you see a person compulsively, stridently, forcefully assert that another’s view is “wrong”, rather than simply, benignly sharing his own views and allowing others to do the same, this is usually because the person has some cognitive dissonance regarding the opinion that he is holding onto all too tightly, hiding his uncertainty behind a wall of assertion and insistence that his own position MUST be “the correct and actual truth”; the intensity of their insistence is the degree to which they feel threatened by the possibility of other reality, the fear that their “stable datum” is a lie. C of S policy indoctrinates adherents to unequivocally bind themselves to every dogmatic principle, with increasing “gradients” of enforcement of “the viewpoint”, from “word clearing”, to “ethics”, to “justice” punishment actions, to bring about the same enforcive attitudes in each person, for them to impose on each succeeding person; those so indoctrinated are ill-equipped to socialize outside of that closed society. When challenged by an environment of (somewhat) free speech, there is a tendency to retreat to ingrained behavior patterns, and it can take any length of time to “settle out” and recover a greater sense of self.

          1. ‘Do birds fly?’ Done properly, what remains is the question itself. There can nevertheless be some picture of birds flying in the memory of the person, just flying, without any charge in between the person and the birds. It may mean – the person is detached from the past. I view any auditing question, order like this.
            As for ‘touch the wall’, when the intention is ‘pure’, that is Tone 40, that is the intention of ‘life-static’ itself (seemingly personal but in fact kind of impersonal in
            the sense of it being 8th dynamics), the outcome of the action will be creative and
            pro-life.
            Done this way, the possibility of indoctrination is zero. As I see it, it was meant this
            way. So that the ‘life unit’, hidden by ‘mind’ can come out, BE THERE fully alive.. ‘Scientology’ is a set of processes where, in the end, just Life remains. ‘Pure’ life.
            I see, experienced it this way.

    2. Geir – Is this directed at me? I have read enough.

      Chris – I do not consider myself a Scientoogist and haven’t done so for years. I do though think anyone who practices in this field for as long as Hubbard did could well have unearthed valuable insights – these insights can be lost when the mob gets out its torches and pitchforks.

      Clearly we see all this differently. I agree with Dexters comment about the importance of tolerating other viewpoints, thoughI don’t think that extends to tolerating intolerance.

      However, to paraphrase Forrest Gump – that’s all I have to say about that right now.

      1. That’s a good point AOTC. Tolerance should not extend to intolerance. Scientology’s doctrine of intolerance is well known among ex-Scientologists who having felt it’s sting feel obliged to call it as they see it which as you kindly point out should be tolerated. The person behind the moniker of Marildi is tolerated in my view. But the words, when they represent an intolerant and fascist ideology should be called as such the way we would feel an obligation to call out Ku Klux Klan or Nazi rhetoric when it surfaces.

      2. aotc, I just wanted to tell you how much I admire the way you handle yourself. You keep a steady head and use noninflammatory words as much as possible while maintaining your own viewpoint and personal integrity. And whether anybody believes it or not, this observation is actually separate from the fact that I myself was the subject of comments where this beingness came through (although those observations were hugely appreciated).

          1. That book link is a good get aotc. Thanks for posting that. I particularly liked the reference to Jung “The great psychologist Carl Jung contrasted what he called the niggardly either/or with the glorious both/and. This is a simple way of differentiating logical and paralogical thinking.”

            My own research has laid this out in the same way. In other words, the either-or models are shortchanging us and stopping us from embracing the enormous wonder of life. Logical thinking is required to put the rovers on Mars, but maybe it’s paralogical thinking that is required to think we could do that at all. Arguments pitting one ideology against as in “Do you believe in creationism or do you believe in evolution” short change us when the answer is “both/and”more.

            Everyone seems to describe the wonders of life until they can’t anymore then use tautology as a fall back position and in my view this is not only natural but correct. This book is on exception. Example: “Once you get it, then you’ve got it.

            1. I fully agree Chris, I took a lot from this too. Thinking of the deep questions paralogically and embracing the fundamental mystery of life is I think a sign of spiritual maturity.

            2. I have a question regarding Carl Jung.
              What kind of thetan the scientologists would believe he was?

              I’ve not seen fair answers in my language so far. And one of those answers stated that Hubbard was a super-thetan, and some other people could have “high-cases” with special treatment, like if they were pre-OTs already.

          2. aotc
            Thank you. Beautiful, just beautiful…life, light are shining through his words. I am half way through it, also looked at three of his videos. I love feeling (and also being in the company of in life) of those beings who are willing to use words or any form of art or science to express which is beyond words. He is one of those who can get one to feel non-duality. Thanks for sharing…..

    1. aotc, for some reason people often spell my name the way you did. So I’m used to it and hardly gave it a thought. Considerations are senior to mechanics. 😉

    1. It tends to die out when I don’t post for a while. New blog post coming up with a new epiphany during the past week.

      Been busy finalizing my book for the publisher.

  36. I have just bumped into this video. I find it extremely interesting. Plain. Compared with the Tone Scale, even Quantum Physics, it could be the basis of a little discussion. If some of you are in.

    1. Marianne,

      I watched about 10 minutes of this video, until I could not take it any more.

      That woman is flakey, fruity and nutty and out to lunch.

      She has been reading to many nonsensical books and the like.

      What she says is pure nonsense.

      Psychic vampires simply are people who have been severely abused as children.
      They were abandoned, and emotionally malnourished or totally emotionally unnourished.

      They grew up in a home with no love, and lots of abuse

      They were probably abused in any number of ways to a point where their GE and thetan were broken to a point, beyond their breaking point.

      They are way near the very bottom of the (-) section of the tone scale.

      Love is a postulate, or a program or an imprint, or what ever you want to call it.

      Love is is an applied and learned thing,.

      And part of the GE is genetically programed to need love and emotional nourishment from before conception and so on.

      Love and emotional nourishment are essential requirements for a well developed human.

      I would say the thetan is likewise.

      So when this being grows up, his emotional container is empty.

      And being that every one needs this cup full and have all the self confidence and other related stuff full to be able to function normally and competitively in the world, this person whose container is empty, is dysfunctional to that degree.

      So this person being empty inside will tend to suck the life force energy or what ever you want to call it, out of sympathetic persons.

      These people are extremely starved for love and emotional nourishment, so much that they feel like an endless dying.

      They are “dying” in side, and at the same time can’t die.

      The emotional void is extremely painful.

      They are a vacuum, because their container was not filled in childhood.

      So they tend to automatically and inadvertently suck energy from sympathetic people.

      Because they need it to prevent from dying.

      They have no control over it.

      We are all products of genetics, conception, gestation and upbringing.

      We are only as good as we were bred and brought up.

      If you have a problem with the product, you have to check with the factory for the cause.

      In regards to healing this individual, probably if a properly qualified and competent scientologist became the person’s mate and equipped with this knowledge and educated and proficient in it’s application, could do sufficient regression therapy to birth and do what the mother should of done in the first place, that is lots of cuddling and caressing and playing like a good mother does to a baby, should go a long ways in filling this person’s container and repairing this so called psychic vampire.

      These people need healing, healing of a very specialized kind, and not some flakey, air headed, nutcase giving such mindless, verbal diarrhea explanations.

      Dio

        1. Marianne,

          I read and listened to, and practiced this kind of mostly nonsense stuff for more than 20 yrs until it just about killed me.

          Then I discovered scn and auditing and since then I have been getting better.

          I found I can sort out the wheat from the chafe of this kind of mostly nonsense stuff and use it, when i got a good handle on scn. When i learned how to know. Then everything came into alignment.

          Dio

  37. Thanks for starting the discussion, Dio. Can it be as simple as what she is saying and drawing at 1.15 and what she is saying about vibrations starting at 5:25?
    One Source (with no ‘games’), games of spirits, thoughts, emotions, efforts…the ONE playing with oneself in seemingly divided forms and ways?

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s